Appeal No. 2006-2509
Application No. 10/001,431
claim 17, but in our view the reference supports the examiner’s finding of anticipation.2
We thus sustain the examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
2 Moreover, claim 17 is drawn to, at best, a file containing nonfunctional descriptive material and
“a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that
cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer). .
. .” MPEP § 2106, p. 2100-22.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007