Appeal No. 1998-1078 Page 5
Application No. 08/442,532
at a different time than a point of an output signal
from said FG pattern, said point of said output
signal functioning as a trigger for rotation
control.
Besides the appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), the
reference relied on in rejecting the claims follows:
Imai et al. (Imai) 5,408,153 Apr. 18,
1995
effectively filed July 1, 1992.
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over AAPA in view of Imai. Rather than repeat the arguments
of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to
the brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the totality
of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-4. Accordingly, we reverse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007