Appeal No. 1998-1853
Application No. 08/397,292
not cure the deficiency noted above. Therefore, the rejection
based on Dworkin, Maki and Quentin (with respect to claims 2,
3, 14, 16, 26 and 27) also does not constitute a prima facie
case of obviousness. Regarding claim 5, the examiner adds to
the combination of Dworkin and Maki, another reference, i.e.,
Windows™. However, Windows™ also does not cure the deficiency
noted above. Therefore, the rejection based upon Dworkin,
Maki and Windows™ also does not constitute a prima facie case
of obviousness.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 13, 25, 30 and 31 over Dworkin and
Maki, of claims 2, 3, 14, 16, 26 and 27 over Dworkin, Maki and
Quentin, and of claim 5 over Dworkin, Maki and Windows™.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007