Appeal No. 1998-2692
Application 08/512,239
we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
16-18.
We now consider the rejection of claims 9 and 15 based on
the teachings of Lambropoulos, Boyles and Shiota. These
claims stand or fall together [brief, page 4]. The examiner
discusses this rejection on pages 6-8 of the answer.
Appellant argues that the PIN of Shiota is completely
different from the PIN of these claims and that the PIN in
Shiota is not transmitted to other components nor stored by
the other components as claimed [brief, page 9]. The examiner
responds that the PIN of Shiota is alternatively equivalent to
the claimed PIN [answer, page 9].
We agree with the position of appellant for the reasons
noted by appellant in the brief. Therefore, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 15.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 8, 19 and 21, but we have not sustained the
examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11, 15-18 and 20. Therefore,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3, 8-11 and 15-
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007