Appeal No. 95-3405
Application 08/077,505
emulation program for interpreting control codes as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 as being anticipated by
Christopher.
As for the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-12,
the examiner discussed only claim 9 and failed to address
anything concerning claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 (answer at 4). It
appears that the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and
10-12 is based solely on the anticipation rejection of those
claims over the same prior art reference. Anticipation has been
referred to as the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
Accordingly, because we have not sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10-12 over Steeves, or over
Christopher, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of those
claims over Steeves, or over Christopher, on the mere basis of
the corresponding anticipation rejection of the same claims.
As for claim 9, the examiner’s discussion does not account
for the deficiencies of the references with respect to the
features of claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Accordingly, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007