Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
2 Claims 2 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
3 paragraph as being indefinite. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages
4 4 and 5 of the Answer. Claims 1 through 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 through 25
5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Aura. The
6 Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5 through 9 of the Answer.
7 Claims 8, 11 through 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
8 unpatentable over Aura in view of Micali. The Examiner’s rejection is set
9 forth on pages 9 and 10 of the Answer. Throughout the opinion we make
10 reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (filed May 24, 2006, and September
11 11, 2006, respectively), and the Answer (mailed July 13, 2006) for the
12 respective details thereof.
13 ISSUES
14 First issue:
15 Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph is in error. Specifically, Appellants
17 argue that the limitations directed to computational efficiency and
18 computational resources are clear. Appellants state:
19 The scope of this limitation would be clear to one skilled in the art in
20 light of the ordinary and customary meanings of the words and their
21 usage in the Specification. Aspects of computational efficiency and
22 computational resources are described in the Specification at, for
23 example, p. 1, lines 12-26 and p. 7, lines 3-8.
24
25 (Same argument presented for claims 2 and 3, Br. 4 and 5)
26
27 The Examiner contends that the rejection is proper. The Examiner
28 states:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013