Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
a loop formatting routine for adding a process loop
destination address to the formatted data and
internet address.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Burns et al. (Burns) 5,970,430 Oct. 19, 1999
(filed Sep. 3, 1997)
Papadopoulos et al. (Papadopoulos) 6,282,454 Aug. 28, 2001
(filed Sep. 10, 1997)
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Burns.
Claims 1-10 and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Burns in view of Papadopoulos.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed Apr. 21, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed Jan. 30, 2004) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007