Appeal No. 2003-0994
Application No. 08/579,544
V. Whether the Rejection of Claim 62 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim
62. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claim 62, we note that the Examiner has relied
on the Berbers reference solely to teach, "object management
including deleting" [answer, page 8]. The Berbers reference in
combination with the Travis and Huang fails to cure the
deficiencies of Travis and Huang noted above with respect to
claim 16. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set
forth above.
VI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 63 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim
63. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claim 63, we note that the Examiner has relied
on the Corradi reference solely to teach, "instantiating split
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007