Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
first and second parameters read on threads #1 56 and #2 58.
Such “equivalence” is sufficient to support a rejection based
on anticipation.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, the examiner indicates
how he reads these claims on Burger [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants argue that the examiner uses “equivalency” and
“inherency” without evidence or supporting argument [reply
brief, pages 7-8]. We do not agree. The invention as broadly
recited in claims 5 and 6 is fully met by the disclosure of
Burger for reasons indicated by the examiner.
With respect to claims 7-20, appellants rely on the
same arguments considered above so that we sustain the
rejection of each of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 21, the examiner has
explained how he reads this claim on the disclosure of Burger
[answer, pages 6-7]. Appellants argue that the examiner has
ignored that claim 21 recites “invoking a selected one of a
group of system operations by an interface operation and
converting a single parameter into a plurality of parameters”
[reply brief, page 8]. Appellants then rely on the arguments
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007