Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application 09/776,364
various briefs is that the “same” data file is required because of the recitation of “the
first data file” as argued. From our consideration of Slutz it appears to us that the
artisan may well appreciate the capability of the plural systems discussed at columns 4
and 5 of this reference in conjunction with the examiner’s analysis of that as well as
the plural parameters required there address the argued features, particularly in view
of the fact of what the claim does and does not recite. The plural test systems
generally taught in Slutz to the artisan clearly may call upon correspondingly identical
data files to perform the same or perhaps even different tests because the nature of the
systems may be different. The breath of the subject matter actually presented in claim
1 is more general than the specific nature of the arguments presented by appellant.
Appellant’s remarks in the reply brief and supplemental reply brief believing that
Slutz required a different configuration file to be used to perform different tests appear
to indirectly argue that the references are incapable of conveying to the artisan the
ability to perform in plural systems, based upon the same configuration files, the same
test. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 2 based upon
Slutz alone.
On the other hand, we agree with the appellant’s views expressed in the
various briefs with respect to the rejections of claims 5 through 13 in the first stated
rejection relying upon Slutz in view Fujimori. We agree with appellant’s various
arguments that there is no motivation or convincing line of reasoning of the examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007