Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 11
rejection. In fact, appellants have indicated that these claims
should be grouped with claim 1 [brief, page 4]. Since the
examiner has established a prima facie case of the obviousness of
claims 5, 12, 14, 15, 21, 28, 30 and 31, and since appellants
have not presented any additional arguments with respect to these
claims, then we sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims
based upon the rejection and the comments made above with respect
to claim 1.
We now consider the rejection of claims 33, 34 and 38-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Brichta. The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be fully met by the disclosure of Dow [answer, pages
12-15]. With respect to independent claim 33, appellants argue
that Brichta fails to teach combining values from a plurality of
status registers to form a vector and searching a database to
find at least one corrective measure associated with the vector
[brief, pages 10-12].
The examiner responds that the claim recitation of
“associated with” is much broader than the arguments presented by
appellants. The examiner finds that the term “vector” as used in
claim 33 is broad enough to be met by Brichta. The examiner also
explains how the disclosure of Brichta can be interpreted to meet
the claimed corrective action [answer, pages 25-26].
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007