Appeal No. 2005-2016 Παγε 7
Application No. 09/682,988
claim 18 is grounded in part on the examiner's finding that Fukatsu discloses reviewing
the inputted data and determining parts with banned or recycled content or substances
over predetermined thresholds. The above discussed lack of support in Fukatsu for this
finding fatally taints the examiner's conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in claim 18 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over
Fukatsu also cannot be sustained.
The examiner's application of Farmer provides no cure for the deficiency of
Fukatsu discussed above. It follows that the rejection of claims 11-16, which depend
indirectly from claim 1, and independent claim 17, which also recites a step of reviewing
the inputted data and determining parts with banned or recycled content or substances
over predetermined thresholds, as being unpatentable over Fukatsu in view of Farmer
also cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This application is remanded to the examiner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1),
for consideration of a rejection of claim 18, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as being anticipated
by a conventional computer system known in the art, as evidenced by the admission on
page 3 of appellants' specification that "the computer system 12 is conventional and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007