Appeal No. 2001-1352
Application 08/802,828
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claims 1-3, 5 and 6, the examiner relies upon Bissonnette
in view of Mozer or Baron or Oye, with the addition of
appellant's admitted prior art and the Computer Dictionary as to
claims 7-11. The rejection of dependent claim 12 and the
remaining claims 13-17 is questionable. As stated at pages 6-7
of the answer, it appears to us that the rejection of these
claims is logically flawed on its face unless the examiner
implicitly intends to further build upon the two previously
stated rejections for claims 1-3 and 5-11. In the third and
fourth stated rejection as to claims 12-17, the examiner's intent
appears to merely add Sugiyama respectively to the first and
second stated rejections.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007