Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965
The anticipation rejection of claims 7 through 10 is sustained because appellant
has not provided any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented
for claim 1.
The anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 15 is sustained because appellant has
not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented for
claim 11.
The anticipation rejection of claims 18 through 20 is sustained because appellant
has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented
for claim 16.
The obviousness rejection of claim 2 is sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for this claim apart from those presented for claim
1.
The obviousness rejection of claim 3 is sustained because appellant’s argument
(brief, pages 15 and 16) that the library apparatus in Tanaka lacks “code for providing the
web-based page(s)” is without merit. As indicated supra, the examiner relied on Cogger
for such a teaching.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 17 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner’s finding (answer, page 9) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to use a remote management card as taught by Barford in Cogger for the
advantage of “remotely testing the system and storing test log data.” Appellant’s
argument (brief, page 17) that “Barford fails to teach or suggest that its remote
management card comprises ‘computer-executable code comprising: code for receiving
information … code for entering the receiving information into a data structure; and code
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007