Appeal No. 2002-1875
Application 09/245,776
We agree with appellants that the questions in Taylor are
for configuring or setting up a device, not for diagnosing the
device. Accordingly, claim 15 is not anticipated by Taylor. The
rejection of claims 15-18 is reversed.
Obviousness
Claims 12-14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Tarumi. Tarumi does
not cure the deficiencies of Taylor as to the rejection of
independent claims 9 and 15. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 12-14 and 19 is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007