Appeal 2007-1120
Application 09/747,219
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that Seder does not teach encoding an
electronic file with an identification code that is based on both a
classification code and an inventory code.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner because Seder
does not disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention set forth
in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 22, and 25.
Obviousness has not been established by the Examiner because the
applied references to Seder and Van Huben neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter set forth in
claims 9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 24, and 26.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 22, and 25 is
reversed. The obviousness rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, 14, 23, 24, and 26
is reversed.
REVERSED
tdl/ce
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013