Appeal No. 2002-0653
Application No. 09/121,747
display interface.” In fact, Shaya is completely silent as to a model/database model of any kind.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 9, 17, 25, 32 and 39 is reversed because Shaya does not
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043,
1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 8, 10 through 16, 18 through 24, 26 through
31, 33 through 38 and 40 through 44 are reversed because the teachings of Kitahara, Bates, Steele,
McCaskill and Bertram do not cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Shaya.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007