Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as being unpatentable over Resnikoff and
Balph.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. ' 112 rejection of the claims,
Appellant initially refers to various portions of the
specification to establish antecedent basis for the term Asaid
first predetermined schema@ (brief, page 4). However, in
response to the Examiner=s clarification (answer, page 11),
acknowledging that the word Apredetermined@ is not explicitly
recited in the base claim, Appellant argues that the claim is not
indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
able to ascertain the scope of the claims (reply brief, page 5).
Although it is not clear why Appellant did not amend the
claims to reflect the claimed subject matter as recited in the
amended independent claim, we do not find that the above
mentioned inconsistency rises to the level of a rejection for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007