Appeal No. 2000-1901
Application 08/506,032
obvious to combine with the initial reference to Ito. The statement
is made at the top of page 5 that the primary reference to Ito "as
modified" does not teach certain features, to which the examiner
relies upon two additional references, arguing their combinability
within 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is not clear to us in each instance in
which the examiner uses the term "Ito as modified," what the
examiner is referring to that has been previously recited since this
terminology is used in multiple locations. The examiner continues
with this approach until all of the seven references have been
considered together, each separately with Ito.
Beginning at page 6 of the answer, the examiner then considers
various combinations of the references relating to particular
independent claims. This appears to conflict with the examiner's
assertion at page 3 of the answer, which states that all claims are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of all seven
references relied on. Moreover, the assertions made with respect to
each of the seven references at pages 3-6 of the answer fail to set
forth any context or claimed feature of any identifiable claim on
appeal for which a specific reference is relied upon to meet. The
examiner's attempted correlation beginning at page 6 of the answer
to respective independent claims fails to assert what is taught in
any given reference with respect to what is claimed in any of these
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007