Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
and “specification coordinator” was reasonable for the reasons stated on page 10
of the decision.
Appellants also argue that the Board did not address (1) the examiner’s
assertions that (1) certain language in claims 2, 7, 8, and 13 constitutes
nonfunctional descriptive limitations, and (2) the claimed invention does not
functionally relate to the method steps claimed [request, pages 10 and 11].
Initially, we noted on page 3 of our opinion that we did not intend to repeat
appellants’ or the examiner’s arguments [decision, page 3]. In any event, we
were not persuaded by these particular arguments made by the examiner; such
arguments were therefore not germane to our decision. Nevertheless, based on
the totality of the record before us, we found sufficient evidentiary support for the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons previously
discussed.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by appellants in the
request for rehearing, but none of these arguments are persuasive that the
original decision was in error. We are still of the view that the invention set forth
in claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-16 is not patentable over the applied prior art based
on the record before us in the original appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007