Appeal No. 2003-1873
Application 09/281,420
germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In
re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967). A
statement of intended use does not qualify or distinguish the
structural apparatus claimed over the reference. In re Sinex,
309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). This is
equally applicable to “data structure” claims. Stripping claim
24 of such limitations we find that it defines a data structure,
which is obvious in view of the references.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 3, 6-7, 11-15, 17-18, 29,
32-33, 37-41, 43-44, and 51 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 3, 6-7, 11-15, 17-18, 29, 32-33, 37-41, 43-44, and 51.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants argue that the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007