Appeal No. 97-0507
Application 08/202,609
prior art structure in each reference relied upon by the examiner
to reject the claims on appeal.
To further buttress all these considerations, the programmed
digital computer clause is merely “capable of” receiving and
producing specified data, and the program means clause is merely
“for training” when aeromagnetic data is presented. Neither
clause of the body of claim 25 on appeal positively recites the
respective acts or functions are carried out by the “system” of
the preamble. The chosen language refers to future acts or
functions which may or may not occur.
Since appellants’ briefs do not indicate any grouping for
the claims on appeal and because there are no arguments presented
as to dependent claims 26 through 30 as to each rejection of the
claims on appeal, they all fall with our affirmance of both
rejections of claim 25. In view of the foregoing, we have
sustained both rejections of claim 25 to 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007