Appeal No. 2005-0788
Application 09/757,951
fails to support the supposed findings of the examiner [reply
brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims for essentially the reasons argued by appellant in the
briefs. We agree with appellant that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The examiner’s
reference to brief portions of Ginter fails to explain how the
examiner has found Ginter to fully meet the claimed invention.
Independent claim 9 recites a reconciling node, a content
providing node, a content requesting node and a content managing
node. Claim 9 also recites a communication of first and second
specific reports between these nodes. We fail to see how the
specific communications recited in the claimed invention are
fully met by Ginter, and the brief citations to Ginter provided
by the examiner fail to explain how Ginter satisfies the very
specific recitations of the claimed invention. The examiner
should have identified what corresponds to each of the claimed
nodes in Ginter and what corresponds to the first and second
reports, the request and the message enabling a credit. The
examiner should not have assumed that we would be able to guess
exactly how he was reading the claimed invention on the
disclosure of Ginter.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007