Appeal No. 1999-1563
Application 08/509,619
the same limitation of claim 2 analyzed above and found
lacking in Lemon. The Nguyen, Maeurer and Shing references
are relied upon by the Examiner in the five additional
rejections before us solely for their disclosure of specific
limitations presented in the dependent claims, and not for a
core function being designed such that the core function is
not to be subject to modification by a consumer of the
framework mechanism.
Therefore, we will not sustain the following rejections:
1. The rejection of claims 4, 10, 16 and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lemon when taken with
Nguyen;
2. The rejection of claims 7, 13, 19 and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lemon when taken with
Maeurer;
3. The rejection of claims 20, 21, 23 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lemon when taken with
Shing;
4. The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lemon when taken with Shing and Nguyen;
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007