Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
Reference is made to the brief2 and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that claims 11, 23, and 34 are
nowhere identified in any of the statements of rejection.
However, from the examiner’s explanation, at page 9 of the
answer, it appears these claims were meant to be rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Vora in view of Etheredge,
along with claims 10, 22, and 33. Moreover, since appellant
apparently acquiesces in this interpretation, by the discussion
of such a rejection, at page 13 of the brief, we will treat
claims 11, 23, and 34 as being so rejected.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-9, 12-21, 24-32, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), an anticipatory reference is one
which describes all of the elements of the claimed invention so
as to have placed a person of ordinary skill in the art in
possession thereof. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
The examiner contends that Vora teaches “inputting a search
criteria,” as claimed, at column 7, lines 10-25; “wherein the
2Supplemental Brief on Appeal, filed December 15, 2003,
Paper No. 30.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007