Appeal 2006-2932
Application 10/042,192
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm.
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as slightly
modified here, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants present arguments only as to independent claim
1 as representative of the other independent claims 11, 21 and 31. No
arguments are presented before us as to any dependent claims within the first
stated rejection relying upon Peng in view of Watanabe. Brief arguments
are presented as to the second stated rejection additionally relying upon
Schulze as to claim 5, which is considered representative of the other
dependent claims 15, 25 and 35 in that rejection.
In the initial statement of the Examiner’s rejection of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal at pages 4 and 5 of the Answer, the Examiner
is of the belief that Peng fails to disclose a character string. From our review
of Peng it appears that this reference does teach this feature. Beginning with
the discussion at column 1, Peng characterizes his information as characters
or character data or character sets (figure 1) or character strings (such as
figures 3 and 4). As to figures 3 and 4, note the discussion in the paragraph
bridging columns 4 and 5. Character strings are illustrated in figures 3 and 4
as elements 136. Moreover, the teachings relied upon by the Examiner at
the middle of column 11 of Watanabe buttress these teachings and showings
in Peng by characterizing character signals as character strings. In this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013