Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
The examiner has failed to take into account, each and
every specific claim limitation of claim 16 and, as such, has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16 or
of its dependent claims 17, 19, 21, 23-25 and 29-34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. We also will not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-9 and 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
we do not find Van Dyke to supply the deficiencies noted supra
with regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a).
We turn, finally, to the rejection of claim 46 and its
dependent claims 47, 49, 51, 53-55 and 58-61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Hastings in view of Van Dyke. We will not sustain
the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claim 46 requires, inter alia, “said at least
one of said information items not being designated in said
loading instructions in said first class of loading
instructions...” [emphasis added]. By not designating, in the
loading instruction, a particular information item on which a
loading operation is to be performed, the length of the
relocation table necessary in conventional techniques is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007