Appeal No. 2000-1699
Application No. 08/706,123
as well as arguing that the admitted wired connections of the
prior art do not suggest the recitation of independent claim 26
[brief, pages 11-14].
As noted above, Tejima does not disclose the receipt
acknowledgment as set forth in the independent claims on appeal.
We also agree with appellants that the admitted prior art of
wired calculator networks does not teach or suggest selecting
one and only one client calculator for acknowledgment as recited
in independent claim 26. The admitted prior art does not say
anything about how a wired client calculator would acknowledge
receipt to the master calculator or even if such acknowledgment
would have been necessary. Since the record in this case does
not support the examiner’s finding of obviousness, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 or of
any of the claims which depend therefrom.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-
16 and 20-27 is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007