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
these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007