Appeal 2007-0241
Application 09/931,296
time” (Specification 6:4). This latter terminology is used in the appealed
claims to define the claimed stored software programs as those which have
been “developed over a period of time.”
With the above discussion in mind, we simply find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that the archived versions 45 of components 10 stored in
the history chapters illustrated in Figure 14 of Bentley correspond to the
claimed storing of software programs “developed over a period of time.” As
described by Bentley, “[t]hese archived versions 45 represent the history of
all changes made to the component 10.” (Bentley, col. 17, ll. 21-23).
Bentley further describes (col. 17, ll. 36-37) the ProjectBank History file 3
as one that “holds a chronological list of the changes to the ProjectBank 2 in
the form of chapters.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Bentley, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 16, 22, and 28, as well as dependent
claims 6-9, 11, 14, 17-21, and 23-27 not separately argued by Appellants, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 13, and 15, based on Bentley, we sustain
this rejection as well. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding (Answer
5) of correspondence between the features described by Bentley and those
set forth in appealed claims 2-4, 13, and 15. Our review of Appellants’
arguments (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4) reveals that Appellants have simply
reiterated the features recited in claims 2-4, 13, and 15 and drawn a
conclusion, without more, that the features in Bentley identified by the
Examiner do not correspond to such claimed features. Such arguments do
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013