Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
Definition of "data integrity", Microsoft Computer Dictionary
Fourth Edition, Microsoft Press, copyright © 1999, Microsoft
Corporation
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Adams.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed March 15,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (filed February 9, 2005) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007