Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
present invention.” Again, such generalities are not persuasive as this argument points to no
specific language which appellants regard as distinguishing over the combination of applied
references. The claims do not mention the “software” argued by appellants and appellants do not
point out what “significant features” are being argued.
Accordingly, since appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the examiner’s
rationale, we will sustain the rejection of claims 9, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner also rejects claims 10, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Arnold.
Appellants’ arguments, in toto, are that Arnold “does not have software that remotely
corresponds to what Applicant claims” because it does not have “repositioning commands to a
machine controller or delta correction commands” (principal brief-page 14).
The examiner explains that the claims do not actually require delta correction commands, or
repositioning commands. They merely require that the media have information “recorded to provide
repositioning commands.” While the examiner’s reasoning shows the breadth of the claims,
appellants do not respond to the examiner’s allegation that no actual correction commands are
required, but that the media only has information that is recorded to provide such commands.
Again, since appellants have failed to present any convincing rationale as to why the instant
claims distinguish over the applied references, we will sustain the rejection of claims 10, 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Arnold.
Turning, finally, to the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Leistensnider, we will also sustain this rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007