Appeal No. 2004-2271
Application No. 09/731,650
different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ
964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Appellants further argue at page 6 of the brief, “Examiner
has not stated in the Office Action where Block discloses such
dynamic table size.” We have reviewed claim 11 and find no such
limitation in the claim. We find that this argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 11 and is unpersuasive for that
reason.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007