Appeal No. 1997-3835
Application No. 07/922,273
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-
Ayed in view of Rhodes. Claims 1-8 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ben-Ayed in view of Rhodes, Boese and Terry.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Jan. 07, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed May 07, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 18, filed Oct. 15, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 20, filed Feb. 07, 1997) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has argued that the “key code” is analogous to a message type.
(See answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner concerning the broad scope of the
claim language concerning the “message type” and its use as a search query in a search
in a data table. In our view, any communicated data portion which is generally transmitted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007