Appeal No. 2002-2164
Application No. 09/067,599
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Williams.
Section 103 rejection of claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 over Dosiere and Jeng
Instant claim 17 adds the limitation that the data is received from a network.
Appellants do not appear to provide arguments in response to the rejection of instant
claim 17 aside, perhaps, from the remarks at page 8 of the Brief. However, we
understand the examiner’s language of “as applied to” claims 15 and 19 “above” to
merely indicate that the Section 103 rejection incorporates the findings set forth in the
Section 102 rejection applied against claims 15 and 19. As such, we find no basis for
confusion. We sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 17.
We agree with appellants (Brief at 10), however, that the rejection fails to provide
findings in support of why the artisan would have been led to combine the teachings of
Dosiere and Jeng in such a way as to arrive at the subject matter of instant claim 18.
The rejection (Answer at 9-10) appears to merely allege where corresponding teachings
may be found in the references applied, without identifying any reasons from the prior
art as to why the artisan would have made the combination. The rejection applied
against instant claims 37 and 38 (Answer at 10)2 suffers from similar problems.
Moreover, claims 37 and 38 depend from claim 36. The rejection applied against the
2 As previously noted herein, the rejection apparently refers to erroneous claim numbers.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007