Ex Parte EWELL et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-2076                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 09/428,364                                                                                  


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The appellants' invention relates to computer systems and, more particularly, to                     
              an arrangement for marking computer system components and documentation to guide                            
              a user in installing or setting up the computer system.  The appellants' invention also                     
              includes a method for marking computer system components and documentation to                               
              guide system installation (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set                  
              forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                             


                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims are:                                                                                        
              Crane, Jr. (Crane)                         5,661,631                    Aug. 26, 1997                       
              Scholder et al. (Scholder)                 5,822,182                    Oct. 13, 1998                       
              Amiga Vision Authoring System manual, Commodore Electronics, Chapter 6                                      
              (Commodore)                                                                                                 

                     Claims 1 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
              Scholder in view of Crane and Commodore.                                                                    


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                        
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final                          
              rejection (Paper No. 19, mailed July 17, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 22, mailed                         
              February 25, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007