Appeal No. 1997-2895
Application 08/280,341
limitation in independent claim 1 of ‘generating a command
...’” [id. at 13, 14]. The Examiner’s argument is contrary to
the requirement of anticipation as enunciated above.
Furthermore, for an Examiner to rely on inherency, the
Examiner has to show that the alleged elements must, by their
very nature, perform precisely in the manner the Examiner
prescribes. The Examiner has not made, or even attempted to
make, such a showing here. Mere allegations are not
sufficient to assert inherency. Thus, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Stefik. The other
independent claims, 19, 23 and 26 contain limitations
corresponding to those discussed above regarding claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claims 19, 23 and 26, and the dependent claims 7,
16, 20, 24 and 29 over Stefik.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
There are three different rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103: 1.) Claims 6, 10 to 13, 27, 28 and 30 over Stefik alone,
2.) Claims 2 to 5, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 25 over Stefik and
Piovoso, and 3.) Claims 8 to 9 over Stefik and Abrahamson.
With respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007