Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
previously made. As we discussed above with respect to claim
1, a group of system operations is not the same as a plurality
of different operating
systems. We sustain the rejection of claim 21 for reasons
discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 22-25, appellants
simply assert that Burger does not teach or suggest the
claimed invention without providing any convincing rationale
in support. Appellants’ arguments are again not commensurate
in scope with the claimed invention and fail to consider the
breadth of these claims as interpreted by the examiner.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of these dependent
claims.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s
rejection of each of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-25
is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007