Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
of the page which would change all of the parity in the parity hierarchy. Here the
language of claim 84 recites “creating a second window segment token for said second
window segment by adjusting the base window segment token to reflect the” change
where the token is adjusted in order to create a new segment token. (See brief at page
19.) We do not find that Queen teaches or fairly suggests the creation of this token in
this manner. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 84 and the claims in
appellant’s groups 5 and 8.
Although the examiner did not specifically list claims 101-108, 110, 117 and 118
in either of the 102 and 103 rejections, but discussed them in the body of the rejections,
we do not find that the examiner has made a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness, and we will not sustain a rejection thereof as discussed by the examiner.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 50-56, 72-74, 85-86,
109-111 and 126-127 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 50-125 under obvious type double patenting is reversed; the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 101-108, 110, 117-118 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 124 and 125 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 50-70,
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007