Appeal No. 1999-2681
Application No. 08/656,998
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hyduke in
view of Simoudis.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 25, mailed Feb. 22, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 24, filed Nov. 24, 1998) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants arguments are quite brief and broad with respect to the individual
references. (See brief at pages 3-4.) The totality of appellants arguments are repeated
below:
The present invention provides advantages not heretofore achieved of
eliminating the idle time that is spent waiting for the next set of input
conditions.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007