Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
We agree with the position argued by appellant. Although
Connor is attempting to solve the same problem as appellant’s
invention, Connor solves this problem in an entirely different
way from the claimed invention. As argued by appellant, even if
Connor is presumed to have an operating system as claimed, there
is no disclosure in Connor of using a current system date in
combination with a two-digit historical date to obtain an
unambiguous representation of the historical date. The system of
Connor makes this determination based on a base year previously
selected by the user. Thus, Connor does not use the current
system date in his determination as required by the independent
claims on appeal.
Since Connor does not fully meet the invention of
independent claims 1, 8 and 14, the anticipation rejection of
these claims cannot be sustained. Since the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8 and 14 has not been sustained, we also do
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007