Ex parte QUINLAN - Page 6

              Appeal No. 1997-1271                                                                                     
              Application 08/294,765                                                                                   

              examiner's position has not come to grips with the requirements of the relationship of the               
              claimed set and clear states of the two types of ownership information recited.                          
              Additionally, in independent claims 16, 17, 30 and 31, the functional relationship argued by             
              appellant (recited with the language "as a function of") associated with the ownership                   
              information  of one device with respect to that of the other device has not been addressed               
              by the examiner.  As a whole, we are therefore left to speculate how the examiner's                      
              positions may be achieved by the respective teachings and suggestions of Bennett and                     
              Keryvel even if they were properly combinable within 35 U.S.C.  103.                                    


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007