Appeal No. 2003-1057
Application No. 09/138,380
interpreted as “the requested data.” We further note that the examiner denied entry of
an after final amendment (Paper No. 7, filed Jul. 2, 2002) that would have changed the
claim language to more clearly delineate the desired meaning of the claim limitations.
(Note also footnote 1 above.) We invite the examiner and appellants to revisit this
proposed language to clarify the intended meaning to further clarify the claim as
appellants have persuasively argued in the brief. (See footnote 1 above.) Since the
examiner has not shown that the combination of Arimlli and Allen teaches or fairly
suggests “utilizing the [requested] data prior to receiving a response during the defined
period for response,” we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness for independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. We find similar
limitations in independent claim 11 and will not sustain the rejection thereof and its
dependent claims. Furthermore, we do not find that the reference to Boyd remedies the
above noted deficiency with respect to dependent claim 18 and will not sustain this
rejection.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007