Appeal No. 2004-0040
Application No. 09/273,820
noted. However, the persuasiveness of the position is severely
weakened because appellant has not set forth any corresponding
structure in the specification as filed from which corresponding
structure may be ascertained by us and the examiner that would
not be in the reference. It appears that appellant’s claimed
means for executing is encompassed within the broadly defined
computer program labeled Electrical Rule Checker 100 in the
various figures, which is clearly comparable to the broadly
defined design control system and the Data/Processor Manager as
argued by the examiner in the answer within Van Huben. The first
and second storage locations of claim 15 have been addressed in
our most recent discussion of dependent claim 10. Since
appellant’s grouping of claim 15 within group VI includes
arguments presented only as to claim 15 and not directed to
claims 16, 17 and 18, we sustain the rejection of these dependent
claims as well.
In briefly considering the responses and the arguments in
the reply brief, appellant’s positions here are substantially,
briefly repetitive to those we have already considered with
respect to the features argued in general positions in the
principal brief on appeal. We do not regard the examiner’s
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007