Appeal No. 2004-0538
Application No. 09/976,495
memory…” we find this limitation to be ambiguous as it does not identify if the antecedent
memory is the memory associated with the first of second system control unit. The
examiner and applicant should take appropriate action to eliminate this ambiguity in claim
4.
For the forgoing reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by AAPA and the examiner’s rejection of Claims 2
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over AAPA in view of either Hagersten
or James.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
))
Administrative Patent Judge
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007