Appeal 2007-0251
Application 10/085,310
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, and of
claims 1, 3, 6-15, 17-19, 22, and 25-29 that are not separately argued.
Appellants argue claims 4, 5, 23, and 24 under a separate heading.
(Br. 11-12.) We find that the arguments in defense of that group of claims
rely on the argument that we have found unpersuasive; i.e., the proposition
that the claims require a handheld computing device and Moriconi fails to
teach a handheld computing device. Appellants’ not showing error in the
rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 23, and 24.
We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not set
forth a prima facie case for unpatentability with respect to the subject matter
of claims 2, 20, and 21. We find no basis in this record for the position that
Moriconi at column 4, lines 57 through 59, and Figures 2 and 4, would have
suggested that connector 39 could be replaced with “any other appropriate
type” (Answer 4 and 7). Nor has the Examiner provided any evidentiary
basis for the position that a multi-pin electrical connector and a wireless
interface were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention.
(Answer 11.) We thus do not sustain the rejection as to claims 2, 20, and 21.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013