Appeal No. 2002-0592
Application No. 09/107,090
and a data target. The examiner continues and evaluates the claimed invention in light
of an exemplary disclosure in appellants’ specification that the invention may be
implemented in C++ programming. (See answer at page 6.) The examiner then
indicates that the phrase “defining an method” must be different than what appellants’
intend. (See answer at pages 6-7.) Here again, the examiner takes an unreasonable
and inaccurate interpretation of the language of independent claim 1. Since we
disagree with the examiner’s simplified interpretation of the actual language of the
independent claims and from our general agreement with appellants’ arguments in the
brief and reply brief, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of the invention as recited in the language of the independent claims,
and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, 19, 24, and 25 and
their respective dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3-21, and 23-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007