Appeal No. 96-3699
Application 08/063,407
data base. The examiner has identified the two data bases as rule base 34 and templates 50 in Figure 3
of Prager. However, as noted above, there is no substitution of data between elements 34 and 50 in
Prager and, consequently, there can be no substituting of an object from one data base for at least one
word in the process data from a second data base. Otherwise, it has not been shown that the subject
matter of Paragraph (h) involves an obvious modification of Prager and Bourne. In re Fritch, supra.
Whereas claims 2-6, 8 and 9 depend from claim 1, the rejection of these claims will not be
sustained.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMES D. THOMAS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge )
) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007