Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
(1993) ("For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
argument shall specify the errors in the rejection . . .").
Cf. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997) ("Merely pointing out
differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as
to why the claims are separately patentable."). Because
appellants have not argued the merits of the rejection or
shown error in the examiner's position, the rejection of
claims 14-18 is sustained.
Claim 19
Appellants argue that the combination of Andersen and
Abrahamson does not teach the step of "verifying prior
authorizations of said student for executing said
courseware." This is the only issue argued with respect to
claim 19.
The examiner admits that Andersen does not disclose
verifying authorization of the user (FR3). The examiner
states (FR5-6):
Regarding applicants['] request to provide a
teaching in the prior art of at least
authorization/verification, the Examiner takes notice
on record that, for at least the past five years, a
user identification and password are required for
access to the PTO computer network, and that such was
the requirement while the Examiner attended college
- 18 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007