Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
condition is discovered by the normal operation of the system
testing procedures.
The teachings in Melocik, thus, significantly fall short of
the requirements of independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal. The
examiner’s reasoning in the statement of the rejection and the
responsive arguments portion of the answer appears to fall short
of correlating the teachings of Melocik to respective independent
claims 1 and 4 on appeal as to the noted features we have found
deficient. Additionally, the examiner’s reasoning in these
portions of the answer appears to rationalize these limitations
without offering any additional evidence or references to support
the examiner’s assertions. Brief page 8. Therefore, on the
basis of the applied prior art, we must reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal as well as the respective
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007