Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application 09/776,364
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the amended brief filed on December 21, 2004, the reply brief and the
supplemental reply brief for appellant’s positions, and to the answer and supplemental
answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Although we sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 14, 17 through 21 and
23 through 32, all claims on appeal, within 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not sustain each of
the examiner’s respectively stated rejections of these claims. Among the first through
third stated rejections relying initially upon the combination of Slutz and Fujimori, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. Thus, among the
stated rejection of clams 5 through 13 and all remaining claims on appeal rejected in
the second and third stated rejections respectively relying upon Talley and Walls, we
reverse these rejections. On the other hand, we sustain the fourth and fifth stated
rejections respectively relying upon Gartner in view of Fitting, further in view of
Walls. The arguments in the respective briefs and answers have proceeded generally
along the lines set forth by appellants grouping at page 7 of the amended appeal brief.
To present a general overview of the subject matter of the respective
independent claims on appeal, only independent claims 1 and 28 relate to plural test
systems. Independent claim 1 only broadly recites the identification of a file name as
being “based on” plural parameters. Each of the remaining independent claims 6, 14,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007