Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
controls on Blowers' first set of controls and has read the
claimed second controls on Blowers' second set of controls
defined by the hardware operating parameters. Thus, receiving
commands to select desired hardware at best could be considered
receiving second control signals to select a second control, not
to select a first control as is recited in claim 1. Further, as
there is no selection of a first control disclosed in Blowers,
there is no generation of second controls in response to
information received from the selection of a first control, as is
recited in claims 9, 20, and 29. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for
independent claims 1, 9, 20, and 29, and their dependents, claims
2 through 8, 10 through 19, and 30 through 37.
Regarding independent claim 38, appellant asserts (Brief,
pages 13-14) that Blowers fails to disclose the claimed "forward
control operable for permitting a user to proceed through the
sequence of task steps," "backward control operable for
permitting a user to reverse through the sequence of task steps,"
"status for each of the task controls is determined," and "each
of said task controls is operable based upon the status
determined for the task control." The examiner states (Answer,
page 7) that "claim 38 is analyzed as previously discuss [sic]
with respect to claims 1 and 10," which do not recite any of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007