Appeal No. 2006-2193
Application 09/751,823
of security measures discussed beginning at column 10, line 5 in Kraft. In
other words, the anonymity in the claims is not recited to be absolute or
otherwise always in effect. No reply brief has been filed for our
consideration challenging the examiner’s views here with respect to the
matters discussed in the quoted portion from the answer.
Lastly, as to the second stated rejection relying additionally upon Ellis
as to certain dependent claims, the examiner’s answer at page 9 has
persuasively addressed each of the positions set forth with respect to argued
dependent claims 13 and 18, 14 and 19, and 15 and 20, argued at pages 8
through 10 of the brief. Additionally, it is worthy of note here that appellant
has not argued that the additional reference to Ellis was not properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the teachings already combined with
respect to Kraft and May. Appellant’s basic argument as to the second
stated rejection then is that what is claimed is not taught by Ellis or the
combined teachings of the three references. Appellant has not persuaded us
of any error of the examiner’s position.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007