Appeal No. 2000-1513
Application No. 08/829,088
claims, we shall so interpret the claim language to give meaning
to the term, “categorizing, in a recursive manner.”
In any event, even if we interpreted the language, “categorizing,
in a recursive manner,” very broadly so that the disclosure of
Hausauer at column 9, met such language, we simply do not find,
in Hausauer, the claim limitation of “forming an error log based
on the categorizing.” The examiner has simply ignored this claim
limitation in the discussion of the rejection of claim 1 at page
2 of the answer. In response to appellants’ arguments, the
examiner merely indicates, at page 6 of the answer, that Hausauer
“disclose the formation of error log based on the categorization
(i.e. error groups) (see col. 9, lines 19-35).” We have reviewed
this portion of Hausauer and find nothing therein even suggestive
of the claimed error log formation based on the categorizing.
Moreover, the examiner has not elaborated on how he is
interpreting this portion of Hausauer to result in the claimed
error log formation based on categorizing. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection and explanation thereof, on its face, fails
to present a convincing case of anticipation within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. 102. This lack of explanation is especially
deficient in view of appellants’ specific argument, left
unanswered by the examiner, that Hausauer would have no need for
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007