Appeal No. 2003-0326
Application No. 09/050,871
testing and in col. 3, lines 47 through 52 that Day teaches that
clocks 16, 17 and 23 are synchronized. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as well as dependent
claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Day in view of Gundersen.
Rejection of Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Day in view of Gundersen as applied to
claim 7 and further in view of Cowgill. We note that claims 13
and 14 recite “said tester permits parallel asynchronous testing
of all systems and software applications connected to said
control interface” due to their dependency upon claim 7. We
further note that the Examiner relies on Day for teaching this
limitation. See page 8 of the Examiner’s answer. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 13 and 14 for
the same reasons as above.
Rejection of Claims 15 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 15 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cowgill in view of Gundersen and further in
view of Kline. Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to
show that the applied references teach “menu bar, which contains
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007