Appeal No. 1997-1212
Application 08/017,839
including "the specific limitations in the rejected claims
which are not described in the prior art"). Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art."). The rejection of claims 9 and 12 is sustained
for the reasons stated with respect to claim 1. Claim 11 is
not separately argued. The rejection of claim 11 is
sustained.
Appellants argue (Br12-13): "Additionally, claim 10
further defines that in the step of receiving 'assist
information' the 'user' is directed as to the type of assist
information which is to be inputted. There is no such
limitation or discussion found in Padua, et al." Although
the argument is minimal, Appellants have stated that the
limitations of claim 10 are not found in Padua. The
Examiner quotes Appellants' argument (EA12-13), but does not
address where the limitation is found. Padua gives reasons
why a parallelization (vectorization) could not be
accomplished, but does not direct the input of assist
- 17 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007