Appeal No. 2004-1136 Application No. 09/363,948 functioned properly. Kathrow deals only with multiple fingerprints of a single file, not with fingerprints for plural configuration files. Further, we find no disclosure in Kathrow of a configuration file catalogue. Consequently, as Kathrow fails to teach or suggest each element of the claims, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of the claims over Kathrow. CONCLUSION The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED JAMES D. THOMAS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) Administrative Patent Judge ) APG:pgc 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007