Appeal No. 1999-2095
Application 08/475,624
However, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 12 through 18. The examiner has made no showing of an
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge in the prior
art that would have led the skilled artisan to store signals
pertaining to the number of cuts (claim 12) and other features
defined in claims 13 through 18. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed with respect to claims 7 through 11 and 25 through
29, but is reversed with respect to claims 12 through 18.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007