Appeal No. 2002-1506
Application 09/219,934
appeal recites that data is transferred to and from the data
store, which requires that data be written into the data store,
and since Mullins does not write data into the data store as
recited in the claims, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of any of the claims on appeal.
Even if we were to sustain the rejection of the
independent claims, appellants have separately argued many of the
dependent claims. The examiner has ignored appellants’ arguments
in support of the separate patentability of the dependent claims.
Therefore, we would still not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
the dependent claims because the examiner has failed to respond
to appellants’ arguments with respect to these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 8, 14 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Mullins in view of Ludwig. Since Mullins is deficient for
reasons noted above, and since Ludwig does not overcome the
deficiencies of Mullins, we also do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 8, 14 and 20.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007