Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
implement...” at Figure 1, element 106, 108, 110 and column 2,
lines 60-67; and the claimed “selecting the option...” at column
1, lines 55-67.
Appellant argues that the examiner is erroneously
interpreting Levine as though the instrument therein is
programmed by marking on a chart surface when, in fact, the
surface is marked to reflect previously made programming commands
entered in a different way (brief-page 3).
The examiner counters with an observation that appellant
argues that the chart in Levine is simply used for
visualization/indication purposes and not for programming
purposes and that such an argument is based on the notion that
the act of providing visual indication of data on the chart is
separate from the act of using that data to program the
instrument (answer-pages 10-11). The examiner accuses appellant
of trying to separate the programming and recording steps into
two separate entities, whereas Levine clearly discloses an
integrated recorder/controller.
The examiner cites the claim language “‘selecting the option
if desired and programming the instrument in accordance with the
selected option.’” The examiner alleges that appellant is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007