Appeal No. 97-2476 Page 9
Application No. 07/696,079
sent and being executed that AERA can detect a conflict.
Therefore, we find that Perry and Scardina, alone or in
combination with Artz or each other, fail to teach or suggest
the passing on or retransmitting of only logically accurate
instructions as specified in claims 7 and 8, respectively.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the statement of
the examiner’s rejection does not amount to a prima facie case
of obviousness. Because the examiner has not established a
prima facie case, the rejection of claims 7 and 8 over Artz or
Perry in view of Scardina is improper and is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007