Appeal No. 2004-0199
Application No. 09/385,489
system operator performs this settlement. Therefore, we fail to
find that Jones teaches all the limitations as recited in
Appellants' claims 1, 23, 30, 37, 68, 74, 77, 88, 89 and 90.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejection of Dependent claims 1, 23, 30, 37, 47, 68, 74, 77, 88,
89 and 90
For these claims, we note that the Examiner has rejected
these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Jones or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jones. We note that these claims recite the above limitation due
to their dependencies on their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we have sustained the Examiner's
rejection of claims 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, we
have not sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17, 19-
32, 37-62, 64-82 and 84-94 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Finally, we
have not sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 63 and
83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1515
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007