Appeal No. 2004-0858
Application No. 09/747,709
We further note that our decision herein with regard to
independent claim 19 may appear to be somewhat inconsistent with
our decision of July 23, 2004, in Application Serial No.
08/882,381, Appeal No. 2003-1584, with regard to claims having
similar limitations. However, that perceived inconsistency stems
not from an inconsistency of thinking on our part but, rather
from a failure on the part of appellants to specifically argue
the “measuring the time...” limitation in Appeal No. 2003-1584.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of the independent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 2-4, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since neither Park nor Hollier provides for
the deficiencies of Vahatalo.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007