Appeal No. 2004-2312 Page 2
Application No. 10/135,517
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Volansky et al. (Volansky) 5,807,139 Sep. 15, 1998
Schubring 296 07 853 Sep. 5, 19961
(German published unexamined utility model)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 20-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schubring in view of Volansky.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 4, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection
and to the brief (filed March 20, 2003) and reply brief (filed June 23, 2003) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Schubring discloses a personal computer with connections for peripheral devices
and additional components and has as an objective “configuring personal computers
1 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English language translation obtained by
the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office, a copy of which is appended hereto.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007