Appeal No. 2002-2258
Application No. 09/134,977
the claims on appeal. Overall, Baker’s aim is to overcome the
known disadvantages of tangible control documents discussed at
column 2 essentially by not using them according to his specific
teachings. Therefore, as urged by appellant, Baker effectively
teaches away of the use of the control documents of the types set
forth in the claims on appeal. Because of this, their
regeneration as set forth in the claims on appeal is not taught
or otherwise contemplated or suggested in Baker as well.
In view of these findings, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejection of various claims, including each independent claim on
appeal, as being anticipated by or obvious over Baker alone.
We turn next to the third and fourth stated rejections of
various claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being anticipated by or obvious over Schneiderhan alone.
To simplify our consideration of the issues with respect to
this reference, we find ourselves in general agreement with the
urgings of appellant at pages 8 and 9 of the principal brief and
at pages 5 and 6 of the reply brief. The examiner appears to
urge that the alpha-numeric sequence indicators 52 through 58 in
Figure 2 of Schneiderhan correspond to the so-called control
documents of the claims on appeal. We read this reference
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007