Appeal No. 1998-0717
Application 08/099,841
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to each of the claims on appeal, we
appreciate the effort of the examiner to indicate how he reads
the various claims on the applied prior art [answer, pages 3-
15]. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, 20 and 28, the
examiner points out various teachings of Skeen, but the
examiner
acknowledges that Skeen does not explicitly disclose routing a
“part” containing a particular “part type” to a “part
handler.” The examiner states that Bland does provide this
teaching and asserts the obviousness of applying this teaching
to the Skeen system. The examiner observes that this
combination does not meet the automatic recitations of the
claimed invention and cites Fisher for the obviousness of this
feature.
Appellants argue that each of the independent claims
recite in some form the automatic routing of computer
information to a software entity by a package manager based
upon the part type attribute. Appellants argue that the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007