Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 4, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure of
Fults. In particular, the Examiner points to the illustrations in
Figures 1, 2, 45, and 46 of Fults along with the accompanying
descriptions at columns 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 22, and 24.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Fults to
disclose every limitation in independent claims 1 and 4 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. In
particular, Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 9-11; Reply Brief,
pages 4 and 5) assert the Examiner’s misinterpretation of the Fults
reference which, in Appellants’ view, has no disclosure of three
application programs, let alone how one application program
describes the interoperability of two other application programs as
set forth in the appealed claims. Appellants’ arguments in the
Briefs assert (Brief, at 10) that Fults is not concerned with the
relationship of separate autonomous application programs but,
rather, with an attempt to design a user interface for a single
application program.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007