Appeal No. 96-0254
Application 08/096,149
No. 10, filed March 27, 1995) and in the reply brief (Paper
No. 12, filed May 19, 1995).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied Guttag reference, and to the positions set forth by
appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of the record before
us, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guttag.
As appellant pointed out on page 3 of the appeal brief,
Guttag does not teach, nor render obvious the step of
repeating the steps of capturing a word of
the multiple word data string, analyzing the
word’s accuracy, and communicating a pass or
fail indication until all the words in the
multiple word data string have been tested,
whereby each repeating step analyzing a
subsequent word’s accuracy in the multiple
word data string and whereby testing of each
word of the multiple word data string is
accomplished at a fraction of the frequency
of the multiple word data string.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007