Appeal 2007-0357
Application 10/180,862
Lastly, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to the
separate rejection of dependent claims 16 and 17 rejected within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Even though the Examiner only briefly utilized the motivation of
“providing a simple, flexible and easy-to-use user interface” as a part of the
reasoning and combinability of Intel and Onosaka, the teachings of this latter
reference clearly are consistent with the Examiner’s brief reasoning of
motivation. The Abstract as well as the Summary of the Invention clearly
set forth significant advantages for the user to have been able to visually be
aware of the nature of the devices from which to choose to operate in a
display step such as illustrated in Onosaka’s figure 6 as relied upon by the
Examiner and the correlated discussion at columns 7 and 8 of this reference.
Onosaka’s invention clearly would have been an obvious enhancement to an
artisan viewing the PC environment of use of Intel. As to the features of
dependent claim 17, because Onosaka clearly teaches the system
automatically recognizes the connectability of a new modem to the system
even during normal operation, this would have been an indication of the
implicit detectability before the booting up of the computer the next time.
This is indirectly reflected beginning at figure 11 of Onosaka.
Finally, we note in passing the Examiner’s objection to dependent
claim 4. This claim as well as dependent claims 14 and 15 appear to us to
have been subject to rejections under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 because of vague and indefinite relationships of the recitations in these
claims to their respective parent claims. It is not clear, for example, what
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013