Appeal No. 2000-2067
Application No. 08/859,278
the claimed separate processors found in claim 1 and thereby
included in the limitations of claims 3 and 6. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 6.
We also note that in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, which is dependent on independent claim 1, the Examiner
further applied the Enoki reference to the combination of the
Cohen-Skalli, Kawamata and Hirota references. However, we find
nothing in the Enoki reference that provides any suggestion for
overcoming the Cohen-Skalli, Kawamata and Hirota references’
deficiency of failing to teach the claimed separate processors
found in claim 1 and thereby included in the limitations of claim
5. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5.
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007