Ex Parte Malackowski et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2006-1914                                                                               
                Application 09/764,609                                                                         

           1                                                                                                   
           2          The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                     
           3    appeal is:                                                                                     
           4    Chader   5,617,857   Apr. 08, 1997                                                             
           5    Acker    6,453,190   Sep. 17, 2002                                                             
           6                                    (eff. Filed Dec. 10, 1998)                                     
           7                                                                                                   
           8          The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-23, 25-29, 31-34, 80-100, 102,                     
           9    105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as being unpatentable over                        
          10    Chader.                                                                                        
          11          The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-23, 25-29, 31-34, 80-100, 102,                     
          12    105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as being unpatentable over                        
          13    Chader in view of Acker.                                                                       
          14          We observe at the outset that Appellants only present arguments with                     
          15    respect to independent claims 1, 23, and 29.  Accordingly, we select these                     
          16    claims as representative of the group; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).  With                 
          17    regard to the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Chader,                       
          18    Appellants contend that in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner has not properly                    
          19    considered the invention of claim 1 as a whole, and has not considered the                     
          20    disclosure of Chader as a whole, because Chader only contemplates a smart                      
          21    instrument that is hard-wired to the computer system.  It is argued that if it                 
          22    were an easy expedient, Chader would have described both wired and                             
          23    wireless systems. (Br. 4.)                                                                     
          24          Appellants further contend that Chader never disclosed or suggested                      
          25    the concept of recognizing the device and beginning the act of querying the                    
          26    device as required by claim 1, when the device is placed within the field of                   
          27    view of the system. (Id.)                                                                      

                                                      3                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013