Appeal No. 96-0712 Page 7
Application No. 08/015,756
system” and Gordon clearly is dealing with a networked computer
system.
Next, appellant takes issue with the examiner’s references
to the claimed steps by saying that “...some of them are well
known in the art” and “some of” the steps are taught. More
specifically, appellant states, at the bottom of page 4 of the
brief, that “the Examiner’s unsupported statement that ‘...some
of [the claimed steps] are well known in the art.’ is
inadequate to reject Applicants’ specific claims.”
While, of course, it is true that an analysis of the
claims is not to be done piecemeal and that all claims are made
up of a series of elements or steps which may, per se, be well
known, it is our view that the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and the rationale therefor, at pages 4-7 of the answer is a
well-reasoned analysis with no piecemeal reconstruction of the
claim. Therefore, notwithstanding the examiner’s comments
about “...some of [the claimed steps],” the examiner has set
forth a reasonable basis for rejecting the claims. We also
note that while appellant has criticized the examiner’s
“unsupported statement,” it does not appear that appellant has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007