Appeal No. 95-5030
Application 07/815,694
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-24
and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Sakon.
Claims 1 and 25, on the other hand, do not require a
plurality of levels of priority. Rather, all they require is the
keeping of information indicating the order of receipt and the
sending of information according to their order of receipt.
Our decision is based solely on the arguments raised by the
appellants. We offer no opinion on arguments which could have
been raised but which were not set forth in the appeal brief.
The appellants essentially raise two arguments with regard to
claims 1 and 25. First, the appellants argue that Sakon does not
disclose incrementing the order in which the information was
received by the control circuit. As we discussed earlier, in the
context of the appellants' invention, incrementing means updating
the order as new items are received.
According to the appellants, Sakon simply generates a
sequential order number and assigns it to each new item. In that
manner, the appellants argue that the previously generated order
numbers and attached to previously received items are never
changed or modified and thus are never "incremented" as is
required by claims 1 and 25. We are not persuaded by the
appellants' argument, because Sakon discloses the use of header
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007