Appeal No. 2003-1145
Application No. 09/080,241
Alfred V. Aho et al. (Aho), Compilers: Principles, Techniques and
Tools, Chapter 1, pages 1-24, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
(March 1988).1
Claim 30 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Chan.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
1 The Aho reference is mentioned in the Answer as a supporting document
for the Examiner’s position but is not part of the stated ground of rejection.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed August 28, 2002 (Paper No. 26). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated November 5, 2002 (Paper No. 27), a
Reply Brief was filed January 6, 2003 (Paper No. 28), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated March 21,
2003 (Paper No. 30).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007