Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer
for the respective details thereof. 2
OPINION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 to 13, 15,
17 and 18 but reverse the rejection of the remaining claims,
comprising claims 2 through 4, 7 through 10, 14, 16, 19 and
20.
At the outset, we note our reliance in Missios upon Fig.
1, the abstract, the summary of the invention as well as the
discussion beginning at col. 2 with respect to Fig. 1 through
at least the top of col. 4 also further relating to that
figure. The discussion in the initial paragraphs at col. 2 as
to Fig. 1 relates to the notion of showing in Fig. 1 a program
flow and particular predetermined “operation or associated
group of operations” performed by the representative exemplary
2On June 5, 1996, appellants filed a paper notifying the
Board of a related appeal as to Application Serial No.
08/480,106, filed on June 7, 1995, which has been assigned
Appeal No. 97-0609.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007