Appeal No. 2002-0490 Page 4
Application No. 09/152,751
Claim 26 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Mowry and the appellant's
admitted prior art ("AAPA").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation rejection of claims 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25 and 27
• obviousness rejection of claims 19, 23, and 26.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25 and 27
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Mowry
taught . . . placing a check instruction after the dismissible load (page 8, 3rd full para.;
page 7, figure 1.4; page 129, section titled Summary)." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The
appellant "submits that the unmodified load instruction of Mowry does not perform the
same function as the check instruction put in place of the converted load instruction in
Appellant's claimed invention." (Appeal Br. at 6.) The examiner answers, "Appellant
arguments are directed unclaimed elements, nowhere in the claims are a separate
check instruction recited or checking the validity of the data." (Examiner's Answer at 7.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007