Appeal No. 2004-0023
Application No. 09/334,574
designated with sequential numbers (1, 2, 3, 4) and are clearly
capable of being read by a machine, i.e. they are machine
readable as claimed.
Lastly, we find no error in our prior decision which
concluded, with respect to claims 28-33, that the Examiner’s line
of reasoning in relation to the proposed combination of Markman
and Amacher establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which
has not been overcome by Appellant’s arguments and/or evidence.
Appellant’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, we remain
of the view, for all of the reasons discussed supra and in our
prior decision, that Markman does in fact disclose a
“verification” process as claimed, while Amacher provides a
teaching of indicating the successful or unsuccessful status of a
scanning operation.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we have granted
Appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our
decision of August 17, 2004, but we deny the request with respect
to making any changes therein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007