Appeal No. 1999-0320
Application No. 08/426,751
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellants with regard to the propriety of this rejection are
set forth in the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23) and the
appellants' brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 22 and 24,
respectively).
OPINION
After consideration of the positions and arguments
presented by both the examiner and the appellants, we have
concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
We agree with appellants that Bouchard does not teach or
suggest control means "for indicating to the microprocessor
that the request has been accepted by the device to which the
request is directed, whether or not the device is ready to
accept the request, so long as the request storage means is
excuse for not positively including the reference in the
statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342
n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we have
not considered the teachings of Sakai et al. in reviewing the
merits of the examiner's rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007