Appeal 2007-1653
Application 10/791,945
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Parolari US 2004/0081248 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
Ramesh US 6,909,758 B2 Jun. 21, 2005
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-22, 24-26, and 28-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Parolari.2
Claims 8, 12, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parolari in view of Ramesh.
Claims 1, 12, 16, 27, and 31 stand rejected under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1, 6, 7, 14, 27, 28, and 34 of copending Application No. 10/731,803.3
Appellants contend that Parolari does not teach the claim limitations
of “configuring,” “initiating,” “accessing,” and performing,” as recited in
full supra. The Examiner contends that the various general teachings
regarding incremental redundancy, found in diverse sections of Parolari, are
sufficient to meet these limitations.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
2 The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 16, 18-20, 22, 26, and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pukkila has been withdrawn by the
Examiner.
3 The Brief and Answer refer to a provisional double patenting rejection.
However, with the issuance of Application No. 10/731,803 on January 16,
2007 as U.S. Patent No. 7,164,732, this rejection is no longer provisional.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013