Appeal No. 2007-0695 Page 9
Application No. 09/837,041
known to judges.” Continental Can Co., 948 F.2d at 1268, 20 USPQ at 1749-50.).
The Examiner should also respond to Appellants’ argument that Meltzer
does not show element (c): “a flow manager configured to utilize the metadata to
map the request in the original format to the request in the transformed format.”
(App. Br. 12-13). The Examiner does not appear to respond to this argument and
thus appears to stand on the initial finding that this element is shown in Fig 13 [see
footnote 3]. Answer 3. However, as with element (b), the Examiner has not clearly
shown that Fig. 13 of Meltzer inherently describes the use of metadata.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (effective
September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) is made for further consideration of a rejection.
Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a supplemental examiner's answer is
written in response to this remand by the Board.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
REMAND
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013