Appeal No. 1998-2263
Application No. 08/692,612
The examiner maintains that “[a]ppellant is attempting to claim general network flow
modeling through common linear programming methods set in the specific field of circuit
design.” (See answer at page 24.) We disagree with the examiner. Appellant only claims
that which is recited in the language of claim 28 and the specific sequence of claim
limitations therein. It is that sequence of steps which the examiner has not addressed in
the rejection and that is why we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 28 and its dependent
claims 30, 31, 34 and 35. Similarly, since the examiner has not addressed the limitations
of claim 36 which contains similar limitations, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 36
and its dependent claims 37-39.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 28, 30, 31,
and 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007