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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007