Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
not a convincing argument in view of the examiner’s explanation. As appellant shows
no error in the examiner’s rationale. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claim 8, the examiner agrees with appellant that Balamurugan
does not specifically teach a header. However, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. §103
and the examiner provides a reason as to why it would have been obvious to provide
the information called for in claim 8, i.e., that each file or subfile must have a form of
identification in it and steps 22 and 23 of Balamurugan obtain and upload the locator
coordinates (i.e., starting column), so that the same information is within the file
(answer-page 16). In view of this reasoning, appellant does not point to an error in the
examiner’s rationale but, rather, merely contends that the reference does not teach a
header, as claimed. Accordingly, we find for the examiner as to claim 8 and will sustain
the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. §103.
We also will sustain the rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. §103. As to
these claims, appellant again merely sets forth recitations of the claims (pages 13-14 of
the principal brief) without pointing out the alleged errors in the examiner’s reasoning.
When viewed in light of the examiner’s rationale, at pages 3-4 and 16-17 of the answer,
we find for the examiner.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007