Appeal No. 2001-1390
Application No. 08/922,599
declarant does not appreciate that the broad language of claim 1
does not require the specific processing (calculating)
methodology disclosed in the present application. Thus, the
teaching of Peryam, as a whole, would have been suggestive of the
claim 1 method, as indicated above.
In summary, this panel of the board has sustained the
rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007