Appeal No. 95-1402
Application No. 07/936,507
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer, mailed September 7, 1994 (Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief, filed
June 29, 1994 (Paper No. 11) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
LAVIGNE REFERENCE ALONE
The examiner argues that Lavigne alone teaches the claimed invention. The
examiner asserts that “[t]he control computers inherently includes all the functions carried
out by the gateway entry station and global data base manager.” (See answer at page 3.)
We disagree. Appellants argue that the examiner's assertion that “reformatting the
collected operational data into a single format” is inherent in Lavigne is “nothing more than
an unsubstantiated ultimate conclusion.” (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellants.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007