Appeal No. 96-2127
Application 08/158,054
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
For all the reasons expressed by the examiner in the answer,
as best expressed in the responsive arguments portion of the
answer beginning at page 4, and for the additional reasons
presented here, we will sustain that prior art rejections of all
claims on appeal. Significantly, there is no reply brief of
record to dispute the examiner’s views expressed in the
responsive arguments portion of the answer.
The four clauses (a) to (d) of independent claim 1 on appeal
correspond directly with the Figure 1 flowchart-like sequence of
appellants disclosed methodology. Page 5, lines 13 through 15 of
appellants’ specification indicate that the method of this figure
comprises four steps, the first three of which are carried out
within or under the control of the programmed computer. Without
explicitly arguing such, appellants’ position in the brief
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007