Appeal No. 96-3368 Page 9
Application No. 07/735,020
station or concerned with attributes supervised by the network nodes.” Clearly, the
Examiner has not addressed this limitation in the rejection of the claim. Similarly the
Examiner has not provided correspondence of the applied references to the invention set
forth in claim 5.
With respect to the rejection based upon Schelvis in view of Harvey, appellant
summarily relies upon the arguments provided with respect to the rejection based upon
Foster. (See brief at pages 8-9.) We agree with appellant, as stated above. The
Examiner has provided similar broad propositions without citing corresponding support in
the references applied against the claims.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the Examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent
claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 5 are not suggested by the
applied prior art, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of appealed claims 2, 3 and
6, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007