Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and why the
rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 102,
including any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art
relied upon in the rejection.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that just as the Court is not
under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues this
Board is not under any greater burden.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
As regards claim 23, we agree with Appellant that 28
accessing of the database as claimed is not disclosed by
Conrad. The Examiner's general statement that this an 29
operating feature of multiple parameter analysis fails to
pointout where the specific features of the claim language are
disclosed by Conrad, and we find no such disclosure in Conrad.
In regard to claim 31 we note that section c. of
this claim requires "accessing and displaying a first visual
28Brief, page 10
29Supplemental Examiner's Answer, page 7
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007