Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
With respect to dependent claim 51, appellants admit that Figure 16 teaches the
use of plural computers in the operation of the simulator, but argue that since Rostoker
does not teach a simulation monitor, Rostoker cannot teach that these computers
execute the monitor code. (Brief at pages 29-30.) We disagree with appellants as
discussed above with respect to monitor. Therefore, if the computers execute the
simulation which monitors its own operation, we find that Rostoker teaches the invention
recited in dependent claims 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 and we will sustain the rejection
thereof.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims1, 2, 4-7, 9-12,
14-17, 19-22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3, 8, 13,18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
1 We note that “the code” in line 2 lacks proper antecedence in claim 1. We leave it to the
examiner to address this issue upon return of the application to his jurisdiction.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007