Appeal 2007-1468
Application 09/912,784
Claims 18 through 20, 31, 33, 39, 41 through 43, 51, and 52 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over AARA in
view of Ishigaki and Official Notice of what was well known in the art. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 13 through 15 of the Answer. On page 21
of the Answer, the Examiner identifies that Onsen, Asami and Lester are
presented as evidence of the facts Officially Noticed.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over AARA in view of Ishigaki and Sporty. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 15 and 16 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, Reply Brief
(dated September 25, 2006 and January 19, 2007), and the Answer (dated
December 5, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
I) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
AARA in view of Ishigaki.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the combination of AARA and Ishigaki is in error.
Appellants assert that AARA and Ishigaki are not properly combinable, as
AARA is concerned with searching while the computer system is powered
on, and to incorporate Ishigaki into AARA would defeat the purpose of
Ishigaki or render AARA unsatisfactory for its intended use. Brief, pp. 15
and 16. Further, Appellants argue that even if AARA and Ishigaki were
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013