Appeal No. 1997-4034
Application No. 08/260,269
recited timing signal. Therefore, we will not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 3 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 10
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007