Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Connor [final rejection, pages 2-
5, incorporated into the examiner’s answer]. With respect to
each of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, appellant argues that
neither the background system of Connor nor the inventive system
discloses, teaches or suggests the function of the converter
recited in the last four lines of representative claim 1. More
particularly, appellant argues that Connor does not disclose,
teach or suggest any of the steps which recite the use of a
current system date in a four-digit format as claimed [brief].
The examiner responds that computers inherently have an operating
system which routinely use current date information [answer,
pages 3-4]. Appellant responds that the fact that there are
operating systems in most data processing systems, and that these
operating systems typically use the current date, is irrelevant
to the patentability of the claimed invention. Specifically,
appellant responds that Connor still does not disclose the steps
performed by the converter of representative claim 1 [reply
brief].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007