Appeal No. 2002-0901
Application 09/126,996
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner cites
Erasoft as teaching a computer system which monitors the current
date and time at periodic intervals. The examiner cites the
document from the RighTime Clock Company as teaching that an
erroneous DOS date in a computer can be corrected. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
periodically monitor the date and time in Erasoft and to set the
desired date and time before the roll over to the year 2000 in
order to avoid unpredictable events from an erroneous year
reading [final rejection, page 4].
Appellant argues that the corrective action in Erasoft is
not taken until after transition to the year 2000 has already
occurred. Appellant also argues that the document from The
RighTime Clock Company also takes corrective action after the
date rollover. Appellant argues there is no basis within the
applied prior art for the examiner’s alleged motivation for
combining the prior art teachings to set the correct date before
the transition has occurred as claimed [brief, pages 5-7]. The
examiner simply repeats the basis for the rejection in response
to appellant’s brief. Appellant responds that the examiner’s
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007