Appeal No. 2005-0351
Application 10/186,871
the disclosed meaning of “coverage information” in claim 18 into
the subject matter of claim 18, which we clearly will not do. It
may well be that the disclosed meaning of coverage information
may have a different meaning than the coverage masks in Jouppi,
but any distinctions that may exist are not presented in claim 18
on appeal. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
We also agree with the examiner’s total reasoning set
forth in the Answer as to the rejection of claims 9 through 13,
17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Jouppi in
view of Fuchs, further in view of Wong. At the outset, we tend
to agree with appellant’s views that the examiner’s rationale for
combinability of Fuchs and Wong with Jouppi is weak if not fatal
in the initial statement of the rejection at pages 6 and 7 of the
Answer. On the other hand, the examiner presents substantially
19 pages of responsive arguments between pages 8 and 26 of the
Answer which significantly buttress the examiner’s rationale for
the combinability of the three references to reject initially
independent claims 9, 17 and argued dependent claim 11 in the
principal Brief on appeal. In these pages, the examiner has
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007