Appeal No. 2004-0663
Application No. 09/375,260
17-28, and 31-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Mendez in view of Boothby.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 25, mailed Sep. 29, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ supplemental brief (Paper No. 24, filed Aug. 25, 2003)
and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed Dec. 1, 2003) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner questions appellants use of the language “indicating, on the
computer . . .” in independent claim 1. We are unclear as to the specific reason the
examiner finds difficultly with appellants’ usage of the above language. From our review
of the instant claim language, we find no problem which rises to the level of rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. While the examiner may believe that the
language may be better stated as “indicating, in the computer” it would appear that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007