Ex parte FILEPP et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1997-0782                                                        
          Application 08/158,029                                                      

          Unlike independent claim 11, claim 1 does not per se use the                
          word interactive, but the same sense is conveyed overall to                 
          the subject matter recited in claim 1.                                      
               Therefore, whatever teachings or suggestions the examiner              
          has relied upon in the rejection based on the features of                   
          Cichelli can- not be correlated in a sustainable rejection                  
          within the limited confines of 35 U.S.C.  102 because of the               
          lack of a true interactive environment in Cichelli.                         
               Finally, we observe that appellants' submission of prior               
          art as Paper No. 3 on November 2, 1994, apparently has not                  
          been acknowledged or responded to by the examiner in any                    
          subsequent paper.  The identification of the existence of this              
          separately submitted prior art information statement was not a              
          part of the amendment filed on the same date but was mentioned              
          only in its cover letter and does not have associated with it               
          a traditional Patent Office form 1449.  This appears to be an               
          inadvertent oversight by the examiner.                                      
               In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner                 
          rejecting claims 1 through 15 under the second paragraph of                 
          35 U.S.C.  112 is reversed as is the separate rejection of                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007