Appeal No. 2002-0901
Application 09/126,996
The RighTime Clock Company, Inc., (Y2KPCPro.Com v2.32b), May 23,
1998 and printed from http://www.righttime.com/pub/year2000.tx.
Claims 9, 10, 19 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention1. Claims 1-29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers Erasoft in view of The RighTime Clock Company.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the obviousness rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along
with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
1 This rejection was made in the final rejection, but it is
not repeated in the examiner’s answer. Since the response to
arguments section of the answer, however, indicates that the
rejection has been maintained, we will consider this rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007