Appeal No. 2005-2016 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/682,988
known in the art." We note that claim 18 does not recite that the computer system is
programmed to perform the "inputting," "reviewing and determining" and "reporting"
steps. Rather, claim 18 appears to require no more than a computer system capable of
performing these steps (i.e., capable of being programmed to perform these steps).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed and the application is remanded for the purpose discussed
above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007