Appeal No. 2000-1284
Application No. 08/576,730
the base which respectively branches out to a compile list,
a list generated by a recursive procedure for identifying
additional components, and a final list of components to be
included in the list. Although representative claim 9 does not
recite the “listed only one time” feature, we agree with the
examiner that McInerney does in fact suggest that the components
on the list should be minimized, that is, not duplicated. Since
we find that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness and since we are not persuaded of error by
appellant’s arguments, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 7, 10 and 11 which stand or
fall with claim 1 or claim 9 [brief, page 3].
With respect to separately argued claim 2, we agree with
the examiner that the project component of McInerney constitutes
at least one known component as claimed. With respect to
separately argued claim 3, we agree with the examiner that the
project component of McInerney has an associated title which can
be used to identify a desired known component. Therefore, we
also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007