Appeal No. 2002-0278
Application 08/797,674
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 13, 15
through 18 and 24 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon a
public use or sale of the invention, and we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8, 24, 26, 27, 30 and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tan.
Furthermore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7,
10 through 13, 15 through 17, 25 through 28 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tan, and we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S. C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of IEEE SCI.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based upon a Public Use or Sale
Appellants point out that a declaration under oath by an
inventor pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.132 was filed stating that the
commercial activity did not comprise a response activation queue.
Appellants point out that independent claims 1, 10 and 24 define
a response activation queue, which is depicted in figure 2 as
item 210. Appellants argue that the record shows that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007