Appeal No. 1999-0004
Application 08/593,309
any block alignment processing of Alpert is not taking place
within the compiler based on externally applied information as
claimed.
Both of appellants’ arguments with respect to Alpert
raise serious deficiencies in the propriety of the rejection
based on Alpert. Since these arguments of appellants are very
persuasive, the examiner was compelled to address these
arguments and to explain to us why these arguments should not
be persuasive of nonobviousness. As noted above, rather that
respond to these arguments, the examiner merely noted his
disagreement with the arguments and then restated the
rejection. On this record we are constrained to agree with
appellants’ persuasive arguments which have essentially gone
unrebutted by the examiner. We note that Johnson does not
overcome the deficiencies in the teachings of Alpert.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12 and 15 based
on the teachings of Alpert and Johnson is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of independent claims 8,
16, 22, 27 and 29 based on Alpert, Johnson and Srivastava.
The examiner relies on the teachings of Alpert and Johnson in
the same manner discussed above with respect to claims 1 and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007