Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
We also find no error in the differing interpretation of the
disclosure of Diehl as applied to the language of appealed claim 2
offered by the Examiner at page 5 of the Answer. In our view, as
asserted by the Examiner, the processor 12 in Diehl can reasonably
be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed “pointer,” the EMM
packet and EMM data interpreted as corresponding to the claimed
“location” and “additional data,” respectively, with Diehl’s
processor 12 containing software codes which identify a particular
incoming data stream 13 as containing the “additional” (EMM) data.
We note that there are no arguments on the record before us
forthcoming from Appellants which would persuade us of any error in
the Examiner’s line of reasoning with respect to this claim
interpretation.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of representative claim 2, as well as claims 4-7 which
fall with claim 2, is sustained. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 2 and 4-7 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007