Appeal No. 2006-1090
Application No. 09/848,005
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 25. We also sustain the rejection of
claim 27, because indication to the document processor of Brooks that document
information has been corrected and that further processing may proceed can fairly be
considered a “command message” received from the portable control unit (i.e., via
remote LAN connection). We are not persuaded that the examiner’s interpretation of the
terms of claims 25 and 27 is unreasonable.
Appellant submits, with respect to claim 20, that Brooks fails to disclose or
suggest that the portable control unit (i.e., remote device connected via a LAN) is
capable of various claimed operations. The examiner, however, reads the disputed
language on required operator entries and other operations that are required for
communications over a LAN. (Answer at 3-4.) We consider the examiner’s position to
be reasonable. Appellant could have, but chose not to, file a reply brief to explain why
any of the findings should be considered erroneous. We sustain the rejection of claim
20, and of claims 21-24 depending from claim 20, not separately argued by appellant.
See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Further with respect to claim 20, appellant argues that Brooks does not disclose
or suggest “a command to select one of a plurality of transports to establish a
communication session.” (Brief at 7.) Claim 20 does not require a command to select
one of a plurality of transports to establish a communication session.
Claim 28, however, is drawn to a system including a plurality of financial
document processing transports, including control units with, inter alia, means for
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007