Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application 09/776,364
23, 27 and 28 recites either the combination or the concatenation of the respective
parameters. Otherwise, each independent claim reflect common subject matter in
different degrees of specificity.
As indicated earlier, as to the first stated rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 through
13 relying upon Slutz in view of Fujimori, we sustain only the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 2. No arguments are presented in the
various briefs as to dependent claim 2.
As to independent claim 1 on appeal, we note first that there is no recitation in
claim 1 that the first test is different than or the same as the second test and that the
first test system is the same or different than the second test system. Moreover, the
recitation of “a first data file” does not require that the same data is used by both test
systems to perform a “same” first and second test. Again, note that claim 1 does not
require that the parameters be combined or concatenated, only that the tests are
broadly defined to be “based” on the parameters.
With this background in mind we agree with the examiner’s analysis of Slutz
only as it applies to independent claim 1 on appeal based upon the examiner’s position
set forth at least at pages 4, 14 and 15 of the answer as well as the remarks at pages 6
and 7 of the supplemental answer. A major focus of appellant’s arguments in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007