Appeal No. 1998-0622
Application No. 08/360,972
said encoded information and other encoded
information provided thereto through said
communication link to the remote device.
The examiner relies upon the following references:
Hayano et al. (Hayano) 5,132,966 Jul. 21, 1992
Buhrke et al. (Buhrke) 5,231,631 Jul. 27, 1993
Caci 5,392,223 Feb. 21, 1995
(filed Jul. 29, 1992)
Claims 3 to 21, 24 to 36, and 44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buhrke and Caci.
Claims 37, 38, 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable Caci in view of Hayano.
Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Caci, Hayano and Buhrke.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the final rejection , the 1
1An amendment after final rejection was filed as paper no. 9. The
examiner approved the amendment and it was entered into the record, see paper
10. Another amendment after final rejection was filed along with the brief as
paper no. 16. However, we have been unable to locate this amendment and there
does not appear to be anything in the record to indicate that paper no. 16 was
accompanied by an amendment. The examiner is advised to verify the existence
or non-existence of the amendment which is numbered as paper no. 16 in the
record. For the purpose of this decision, the claims are being considered
subsequent to the entry of amendment C, paper no. 9.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007