Appeal No. 1996-4070
Application No. 08/367,930
in Anderson which relates a register address to message
identification. It is our view, however, that even assuming
arguendo that such teaching exists in Anderson, such an
arrangement would fall far short of meeting the claim
requirements. We agree with Appellants’ argument (Brief, page
6) that the claimed step of "... affixing a block
identification to the message block ..." requires something in
addition to the address of the location of the register in
which the extracted message is stored.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion, that
since all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 3-5
are not suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claims 1 and 3-5 nor of claims 6-10 which depend therefrom.
We note that, with regard to dependent claims 6-10, the
Examiner has applied the Little reference solely to meet the
editing features of these claims. Little, however, does not
overcome the innate deficiencies of Anderson and Cronin
discussed previously.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007