Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
that Neal anticipates claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 1, and also independent claims 9
and 14 since each contains similar recitation. The rejection
of the dependent claims 2-6, 10, 11, 15 and 22 is also not
sustained.
Neal in view of Ell
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as being obvious over Neal in
view of Ell, see final rejection at page 3. We note that claim
17 has the same recited elements as claim 1 and further claims a
movable element and a mover responsive to said control signal
for moving said movable element. Since Ell does not cure the
deficiency noted above in Neal regarding the recited language of
claim 1 which is also found in claim 17, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 17, and its dependent claim 18
over Neal in view of Ell.
In summary, we have sustained the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 by Ell; we have not sustained the anticipation rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007