Appeal No. 95-0456
Application No. 07/933,960
“prior art as set forth previously further in view of
Bergeron” [page 2]. References back to office actions of May
21, 1992 and September 18, 1991 are similarly useless in
ascertaining a full explanation of the examiner’s application
of the references to the claim language. Then, when one goes
all the way back to the office action of February 11, 1991, it
is discovered that the rejection of claims 1 through 12
therein is based on a different statutory section, i.e., 35
U.S.C. ' 102.
Accordingly, the examiner never explains his position
with regard to how the cited references are specifically
applied to the claim language. Normally, we would summarily
remand the application to the examiner for correction and
explanation. However, in the instant case, for the reasons
infra, and for reasons of expediency, we will merely reverse
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 because there
is clearly no case of prima facie obviousness established with
regard to claimed subject matter in view of the applied
references.
Independent claims 1, 12 and 13 all require automatic
communication wherein the communication is from the account
processing stations to the master accounting station if
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007