Appeal No. 1997-2392
Application No. 08/089,990
GROUND OF REJECTION2
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lasky in view of Gilbert and Sun and further in view of Neuberger,
Morrison and Zolla-Pazner.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered appellants’
specification and claims, in addition to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s Answer3 for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference appellants’
Brief4 for appellants’ arguments in favor of patentability.
2 Rejections not referred to in Answer are assumed to have been withdrawn.
Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Sys., 804 F.2d 659, 663, 231
USPQ 649, 651-652 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 933 (1987). In
addition, we note the examiner withdrew her Final Rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed
May 19, 1994) of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and
101 in the July 7, 1994 Advisory Action (Paper No. 11). In addition, the examiner
withdrew her rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph in
the July 28, 1994 Advisory Action (Paper No. 13). Finally, the examiner withdrew
her rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sun, Morrison,
Neuberger and Zolla-Pazner in the August 24, 1994 Advisory Action (Paper No.
15).
3 Paper No. 18, mailed January 24, 1995.
4 Paper No. 17, received September 28, 1994.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007