Appeal No. 1999-0574
Application No. 08/583,588
rejection of any claims based on the additional teachings of
Lin. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of any of
appealed claims 1-23.
With respect to independent claim 24, the examiner
cites Zerillo and the admitted prior art in the same manner
discussed above. Clemmons is cited as teaching the
obviousness of providing multiple controllers for multiple
actuators. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious
to combine the teachings of Clemmons with the teachings of
Zerillo and the admitted prior art.
This rejection fails for the same reason discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Clemmons does not overcome the
basic deficiencies in the record with respect to Zerillo and
the admitted prior art. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 24-38 as formulated by the examiner based
on Zerillo, the admitted prior art and Clemmons.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
rejections of the appealed claims as formulated by the
examiner. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-38 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007