Appeal No. 2004-0545
Application No. 09/510,569
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 8 and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However in accordance
with 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter a new grounds of rejection against claims 1
through 8 and 17 through 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Appellants argue on page 5 of the brief that ”Rakavy does not teach or
suggest the hardware setup program and the dynamic link modules are stored in
a server data processing system (which seems to be management workstation
200 in Figure 1 of Rakavy according [to] the Examiner’s characterization).” On
page 6 of the brief, appellants argue “there is no basis to the Examiner’s
assertion that the hardware setup program and dynamic link modules have been
stored in workstation 200.” Further, on page 2 of the reply brief, appellants argue
that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007