Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case. The rejection is
therefore sustained.
Claims 7-18, 21, 26-50, and 53-61
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-18, 21, 26-50,
and 53-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haddad, Hassell,
and Seazholtz. Regarding this rejection, Appellants raise two main
arguments.
First, regarding claims 15-18, Appellants contend that a claimed
limitation (i.e., “using reallocated excess on-demand infrastructure
capacity”) purportedly did not receive an examination in the Final Office
Action since that office action referenced language no longer in the claims
as amended. As a result, Appellants assert that the finality of the rejection
should be withdrawn (Br. 8).
Second, Appellants contend that the single patents provided by the
Examiner to support the Official Notice assertions in claims 7, 12, 17, 18,
21, 40, 45, 47, 49, and 61 is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion
that the features in question are well known (Br. 12-13).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-18, 21, 26-50,
and 53-61. Regarding Appellants’ first argument, claims 15-18 ultimately
depend on claim 1.9 As we indicated previously, Haddad amply teaches the
limitations of claim 1.10 Although we find Appellants’ argument for
withdrawal of the Final Rejection is directed to a petitionable matter -- not
9 Claims 15-18 each depend from claim 14 which, in turn, depends from
claim 10. Claim 10 depends from claim 7 which, in turn, depends from
claim 1.
10 See p. 10-11, supra, of this opinion.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013