Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
vertical dimensions, hence we will likewise sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of the group 8 claims, that is claim
17(5).3
With respect to the group 9 claims, Appellants state,
"reasons set forth above for Group 2 apply here. In addition,
the reasons set forth above for the claims in Group 6 apply
here." (Brief-page 26). As reasoned supra, we find the
applied references meet the claimed annotation limitations,
hence we will likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the
group 9 claims, that is claim 32(5).
With respect to the group 10 claims, Appellants state:
The discussion set forth above for Group 1
regarding Nielsen applies here. The
discussion set forth above for Group 1
regarding Levine explains that Levine does
not disclose or suggest the features of the
particular stack representation taught by
the present invention and further does not
disclose or suggest need of a respective
request area. The entire discussion
regarding the fact Levine does not disclose
or suggest the features of the particular
stack representation of the present
invention applies here. (Brief-page 26.)
3We do not include in group 8, claim 28, since its
rejection was found unsupported with the group 4 claims.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007