Appeal No. 95-3919
Application No. 07/907,934
because appellant has grouped this claim with claim 201
(Brief, page 4).
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
claim 138, the obviousness rejection of claim 205 is
sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 206 and 207 is
sustained because appellant has grouped these claims with
claim 201 (Brief, page 4).
The obviousness rejection of claims 208 and 209 is
reversed because Katznelson does not compare an “expiration
date” with a date at which a request is received.
The obviousness rejection of claims 210 and 211 is
sustained because appellant has not presented any
patentability arguments for these claims.
The obviousness rejection of claims 212 and 213 is
reversed because a request in Katznelson does not “include
data indicative of the number of processes,” and because
Katznelson does not deny use of a product “if more than a
predetermined number of processes” using the product are
running at terminal 11.
The obviousness rejection of claim 214 is sustained
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007