Appeal No. 2004-1365
Application No. 09/139,808
We concur with appellant. Claims 19, 58 and 66 depend upon claim 11,
54 and 62, respectively, and as such contain the limitation of parsing as
discussed supra. The examiner has provided no secondary reference to teach
parsing the functional expression. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 19, 58 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 52 through 53, 60, 61, 68 and
69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of McInerney.
The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that McInerney teach parsing the
functional expression. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 52 through 53, 60, 61, 68 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007