Appeal No. 96-3763
Application 07/946,509
teachings are to be actually combined with the other teachings
of the applied references in order to arrive at the instant
claimed subject matter.
In fact, our problem with the examiner’s entire
rejection is a lack of convincing rationale as to why and/or
how the various teachings of the applied references are to be
combined in order to arrive at the instant claimed subject
matter. We do not
imply that the claimed subject matter is clearly patentable.
In fact, we find many of appellants’ arguments weak. For
example, because every software implementation also involves a
hardware
implementation, we do not understand appellants’ attempted
dis- tinction therebetween. Also, while appellants argue
[principal brief-page 3] that Childs makes no mention of
plurality of data fields constant . . .,” even though appel-
lants argued in the principal brief [page 7] that the examiner
had not addressed these recited limitations in claims 20, 27
and 34.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007