Appeal No. 2000-1260
Application 08/518,852
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 23 through 25 and 34 through
36 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Archon, Bertram
and Garner. Further, we do not agree with the Examiner that
claims 26 through 29 and 37 through 40 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bertram and Garner.
First we will address the rejection of claims 26 through 29
and 37 through 40 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Bertram and Garner.
Appellants argue that the Bertram reference requires “manual
indication to configure using the ROM-based default configuration
data, whereas appellant’s claims recite computer-implemented
steps that avoid this manual indication.” See page 15 lines 8-10
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on November 17, 1997. In
response to a Notification of Non-Compliance on February 18,
1998, Appellants files a second appeal brief (referred
hereinafter as the Brief) on March 13, 1998. Appellants then
filed a reply brief on August 17, 1998. The Examiner mailed an
office communication on October 15, 1998 stating that the reply
brief has been entered.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007