Appeal 2007-2225
Application 10/054,809
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Borella US 6,269,099 Jul. 31, 2001
Teodosiu US 2002/0062375 A1 May 23, 2002
(filed Sep. 13, 2001)
“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”, Microsoft, 4th Edition, 1999, 252.
The rejections as presented by the Examiner appear to be as follows:
1. Claims 110 and 111 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
2. Claims 110 and 111 were rejected in the Final Rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement. The Answer does not expressly withdraw
the rejection, but neither does it repeat it. See Ex parte Emm, 118
USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957) (rejection not referred to in the
examiner’s answer is assumed to have been withdrawn). We
conclude that the § 112, first paragraph rejection has been withdrawn.
3. Claims 1-4, 8-16, 18-34, 36-52, 54-61, 63-72, 74-81, 83-100, and 102-
111 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Teodosiu and Borella.
4. The Final Rejection rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Teodosiu, Borella, and Microsoft Dictionary. The
Answer adds claims 35 and 73 to the rejection, without notification
that a new ground of rejection has been entered.
5. The rejection of claims 5-7, 53, 62, 82, and 101 is expressly
withdrawn in the Answer (3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013