Appeal No. 96-3763
Application 07/946,509
Figure 11. The examiner con- tends that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of the references because
this “would allow the combined system to increase the speed of
generating headers for messages” [answer-page 5].
We do not necessarily agree with appellants that one
would not look to a software implementation of a header gener-
ator, as shown by Filepp, in order to provide a hardware
solution. After all, any software is run on a physical com-
puter which is comprised of hardware so a software implementa-
tion is also really a hardware implementation.
We also do not agree with the examiner’s reliance on
new references in the answer to provide support for the ratio-
nale of the rejection and so we will not consider any refer-
ences other than Childs, Filepp and Takada, the references
appearing in the statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007