Appeal No. 2003-0781
Application 09/373,499
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 for essentially the reasons argued by
appellants in the main brief. We agree with appellants that the
applied prior art does not support the examiner’s finding that
the COM of Morcos is the same as the claimed FII. We also agree
with appellants that there is no support for the finding that if
the COM of Morcos is substituted as an FII in Otala, that the FII
would communicate with application programs, route image data and
application commands, and interface with a plurality of image
format handling modules as claimed. Since appellants’ arguments
are persuasive and remain essentially unrebutted by the examiner,
the rejection of claim 1 on this record cannot stand.
Independent claims 21 and 34 contain limitations similar
to claim 1, and these claims are rejected by the examiner on the
same basis as claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 34 on this record for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since we
have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 21 and 34, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2-7, 22-25 and 35-38.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007