Appeal No. 1998-2479
Application 08/419,512
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Based upon a reasoning set forth by the examiner in Paper No. 19, mailed on
August 9, 1995 and the answer, we sustain each of the rejections of the claims on
appeal. The examiner's reasoning is amplified by the following.
Turning to the first rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over the teachings and suggestions of Suzuki alone, appellants'
arguments focus only upon the features recited in claim 1. No arguments are
presented as to its dependent claims. Essentially, we agree with the examiner's views
expressed in the answer which respond directly to each of the arguments raised by
appellants as to this rejection in the brief. We agree with appellants' observation at the
top of page 11 of the brief that Suzuki's memory 126 is not explicitly disclosed to be a
RAM or a ROM. But, we also agree with appellants' assessment that this memory is
essentially to the artisan a ROM rather than a RAM for the reasons expressed by
appellants there that due to the need of the system to maintain the measured result for
1 The examiner's communication mailed on January 29, 1997 indicates the
examiner has not entered the reply brief. As such, we have not considered it in our
deliberations.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007