Appeal No. 95-1682
Application 07/853,459
line of text and thereby, Pustell and Maizel teach an appara-
tus for displaying similarities between "lines of text in a
sequence of n lines of text" as recited in Appellants' claim
4. Thus, we find that the Examiner's interpretation of Appel-
lants' claim 4 language is reasonable. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejection of Appellants' claim 4.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Pustell, Maizel and Aho. Appel-
lants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the reply brief that Pustell,
Maizel and Aho fail to teach means for modifying the data to
produce tokens which are more easily comparable than the
tokens of the data as recited in Appellants' claims 6 and 9.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why
one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
the claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or sugges-
tions found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to
the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007