Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Microsoft.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wright1. We note that Wright does not qualify as prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as indicated by the examiner, but does qualify under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) and (e) as indicated in paper number 8.
Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Microsoft in view of Bertram.
Claims 6-9 and 15-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wright in view of Bertram.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed Jan. 5, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17, filed Nov. 8, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed Mar. 2, 2001) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1 We note that appellants refer to Wright throughout the brief, but list the wrong patent number
throughout the brief. Appellants clarified that Wright ‘029 was the correct patent number. (See
supplemental brief filed Dec. 9, 2002.)
2 We note that claims 15-38 were not filed at the time of the statement of the rejection in paper
number 8 and no statement of the rejection is present therein, but since appellants have not disputed the
formal statement of the text of the rejection, we will consider the statement of the rejection as addressing
all the claims 15-38.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007