Appeal No. 2003-1659
Application No. 09/193,662
claim 7, appellants argue that the examiner has failed to specify
where Anderson discloses an automated transaction machine.
Appellants also argue that there is no indication that the item
identified as the sheet dispenser in Anderson in fact dispenses
sheets. Appellants argue that Anderson does not teach the
claimed relationship of a server, HTTP messages, non-HTTP
transaction messages and conversion data. Finally, appellants
argue that Anderson does not teach server software that can
operate in the manner claimed [brief, pages 15-17]. Appellants
also argue that the portion of Anderson relied on by the examiner
as teaching conversion data does not support the examiner’s
position [reply brief, page 3]. The examiner’s answer does not
specifically respond to any of these arguments.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the main
brief. Appellants have raised reasonable questions regarding the
examiner’s findings in support of anticipation. We have reviewed
the portions of Anderson cited by the examiner in support of the
rejection, and we agree with appellants that the cited portions
fail to provide clear support for the examiner’s findings. It
certainly was not helpful that the examiner completely ignored
appellants’ arguments made in the main brief. On the record
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007