Appeal No. 2006-2890
Application No. 09/842,747
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been filed) for appellant’s
positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded upon
here, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is
noted that appellant has presented no arguments as to any dependent claims on
appeal but has asserted separate positions with respect to each independent claim 1,
7, 14 and 19, even though we recognize they have substantially similar limitations.
Among these independent claims argued at pages 8 through 11 of the brief,
essentially the same arguments are presented which also repeat the essence of the
arguments of topics 1 through 3, at pages 6 through 8 of this brief. Lastly, as to the
separate rejection of dependent claims 3, 8, 15 and 21, appellant’s remarks at page
11 of the brief do not argue that the applied prior art is not properly combinable
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and argue for patentability the subject matter of the parent
independent claims. It is noted further here that appellant admits that low data-
bandwidth and high data latency networks were known in the art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007