Appeal No. 2000-0575 Page 3
Application No. 08/599,680
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Darden et al. (Darden) 4,941,841 Jul. 17, 1990
Cooke et al. ( Cooke) 5,142,447 Aug. 25, 1992
Harase 5,155,663 Oct. 13, 1992
The state of the art in computers.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harase in view of Darden and the state of the art in computers. Claims
3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harase,
Darden and the state of the art in computers in view of Cooke.
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. 16, mailed Dec. 4, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed Nov. 21, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed Feb. 9, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007