Appeal No. 2003-1659
Application No. 09/193,662
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs.
Although the examiner cites certain portions of the applied prior
art and suggests that the claimed invention is taught by these
cited portions, the examiner does not explicitly read the claimed
invention on the prior art and it is not clear to us how the
examiner reached his conclusions. There are many recitations in
the claims that are not specifically addressed by the examiner.
Taking claim 1 as an example, it is not clear to us which element
represents the database having conversion data included therein,
where within Anderson’s system the examiner finds the transaction
message, and what is the generated data object in Anderson which
corresponds to the claimed data object. While these elements may
seem trivial, we are unable to substantiate the examiner’s
findings on this record. The examiner has also failed to address
many of appellants’ arguments set forth in the main brief. On
this record, we are not persuaded that the examiner’s rejection
is supported by the applied prior art.
We also note that the examiner’s rejection fails to provide
a claim by claim analysis of how the applied prior art teaches
the claimed invention. Appellants have argued each of the claims
on appeal separately, and the examiner has failed to respond to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007