Appeal No. 2006-0537 Page 3
Application No. 09/753,766
first stated rejection. Thus, appellants only argue here their parent independent
claims in the first stated rejection. Correspondingly, there are no arguments
presented to us that the additional reference to Borkenhagen is not properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 with Parady and Bondi and does not argue
against what the examiner’s says Borkenhagen teaches.
We agree with the examiner’s initial statement of the rejection at pages 3
through 9 of the answer, which has been embellished extensively by the
correlation of each of the cited features of claims 1 through 4 in tabular form at
pages 9 through 17 of the answer. Additionally, the examiner has correlated in
tabular form the features of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 at pages 17, 26 and
27 of the answer. These correlations are compelling of the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter of the argued claims.
The arguments presented in the brief beginning at page 3 have been
specifically addressed by the examiner beginning at page 18 in the Responsive
Arguments portion of the answer. From our point of view, these arguments are
equally unpersuasive of patentability. We note initially as to independent claim 1
that the claimed front end module, the execution module, and the state module
have no stated functions recited for them. The comparison of appellants’ Figure
1 with Figure 3 of Paraday at pages 4 and 5 of the brief is equally unpersuasive.
All of the elements of the specification Figure 1 at page 4 of the brief are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007