Appeal 2006-2936
Application 10/013,714
Rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
We make the following new ground of rejection using our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 4, 30 and 48 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Britton
and Dan. As discussed above, we find that Britton does not particularly
teach verifying the safety of the interface program. However, as detailed in
the preceding section with respect to claim 5 which depends from claim 4,
we find that Dan teaches that limitation. Consequently, we find for the same
reasons detailed above that the combination of Britton and Dan renders
claims 4, 30 and 48 unpatentable.
OTHER ISSUES
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body,
rather than a place of initial examination. We have rejected claims 4, 30 and
48 above under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We have, however, not reviewed
claims 6 through 8, 18, 19, 50 and 51 to the extent necessary to determine
whether these claims are patentable over the combination of Britton and
Dan. We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any
further rejections based on these references.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
(1) Appellant has shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
Britton anticipates claims 4, 6 through 8, 18, 19, 30, 48, 50 and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013