Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is based upon hindsight (Br. 7).
We disagree with Appellants, as discussed above. We do not find that utilizing the
capacity of the communication channel to be an indication of hindsight as Appellants
contend. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the instant application is replete with teachings and
suggestions to communicate the results of probe array experiments over a network (Br.
7). We find this argument irrelevant to the issue of whether the Examiner’s rejection is in
error or whether the Examiner has made an unreasonable interpretation of claim
limitations. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the communication of large volumes of data over a network as
argued in the Reply Brief at page 4, we agree with Appellants that the “10,000 separate
tasks” of Layne does not necessarily correlate to 10,000 data points. We agree with
Appellants that the tasks of Layne may range through all of the steps of a experiment and
that the portion of the reference referenced by the Examiner does not address the data
transmitted. Yet, we do find that the teachings of Layne with respect to the use of the
Internet and the graphical and multimedia communications clearly indicate that the
medium of the internet clearly has the capacity to handle vast amounts of data, as
discussed above. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not supported the reliance on
that the high-speed data transmission over a computer network was well-known (Reply
Br. 5). We disagree with Appellants and find that Layne clearly teaches and suggests
such high-speed communication over a computer network. With respect to the 10-fold
and 100-fold or more volume of data (Reply Br. 5), we find no express support in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007