Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
Claims 5 through 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Clanton in view of Grossman and Williams.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clanton in view of Grossman and Strasnick.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs1 and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter,
on appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 23 and 38
through 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we affirm the rejection of
claims 24 through 37 and 56 through 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants have argued that each of the independent claims
1, 17, 24, 28, 32, 38, 49, 56 and 59, as well as all of their
dependent claims, are patentable because none of the cited
references disclose, teach or suggest representing a computer
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on February 29, 2000. In
response, the Examiner filed an Examiner's Answer on June 6,
2000. Appellants filed a Reply Brief on August 7, 2000. The
Examiner mailed an Office communication on August 24, 2000,
stating that the Reply Brief has been entered and considered.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007