Appeal No. 2007-0332
Application No. 10/316,312
Bailey US 6,820,076 B2 Nov. 16, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-9, 14-21, and 27-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chipman.
2. Claims 1, 14, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Bailey.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us that the evidence relied upon does not support the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse. In addition, we
have sua sponte set forth new grounds of rejection for independent claim 1
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Independent claim 1 (Chipman)
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
being anticipated by Chipman.
Appellants argue that Chipman does not teach translating data
extracted from a data source into parametric entries (Br. 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013