Appeal No. 2004-2179
Application No. 09/785,919
not stated to be different, the second format is not stated to be
different from the third format and the first consumer device is
not stated to be different from the second consumer device.
Therefore, appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief
that appear to be repeatedly stated that two “different” consumer
devices are required and that “another” or “different” format is
required in the second and third formats are not persuasive.
Correspondingly, appellants’ arguments at page 2 of the reply
brief that the examiner errs in a second manner in
misapprehending the claim is equally misplaced. Again the same
point is attempted to be made that claim 26 requires two
different consumer devices and that they be operated in two
different or the second and third formats. Generally, the
arguments are more specific than the actual language recited in
representative claim 26 on appeal. Appellants’ various
suppositions about the art and this reference seem to confirm
these views.
The examiner’s views expressed in the statement of the
rejection and remarks in the answer generally focus on the figure
2 embodiment of Schultheiss and the discussion of columns 8 and 9
of this reference. The examiner’s initial reliance of column 8,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007