Appeal 2007-0510
Application 10/699,507
1 Rather, the Appellants argue that Garr does not cure the deficiencies of
2 Kolosov, O’Rear, and Tolvanen as to claim 1. Appeal Brief at 27-29.
3 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov render
4 obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, there are no deficiencies
5 that Garr must cure.
6 6. Claims 14-17 and 34-37
7 Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and requires that the step of
8 outputting comprise storing the result of step (c) on a data carrier.
9 The Examiner finds that Smrcka teaches a method of testing a new
10 chemical product and storing the results in a data carrier such as a computer
11 readable medium. Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2005 at 11;
12 Answer at 9. We also find that Kolosov stores data such as responses of
13 samples, material properties of samples, or the like on a computer sub-
14 system 23. Kolosov, para. [0068].
15 The Examiner concludes that the invention of claim 14 would have
16 been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined
17 teachings of at least Kolosov and Smrcka. Final Office Action mailed
18 November 4, 2005 at 11; Answer at 9.
19 The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings or the
20 Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 14 in the Appeal Brief.
21 Rather, the Appellants argue that Smrcka does not cure the deficiencies of
22 Kolosov, O’Rear, and Tolvanen as to claim 1. Appeal Brief at 29-30.
23 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov render
24 obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, there are no deficiencies
25 that Smrcka must cure.
26 7. Double patenting rejections
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013