Appeal 2007-1247
Application 10/222,014
Br. 8). Appellants do not specify which “other features” are supposedly not
disclosed by Shah. Appellants also fail to comment on the Bala reference
cited by the Examiner and do not contest the Examiner’s assertion that Bala
demonstrates “well known” features in the prior art as recited in claim 6.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that specific
features of claim 6 are not well known in the art or that Shah, Bala, or a
combination thereof does not teach or suggest the features of claim 6.
Appellants also argue that the cited references do not “address the
division of features between software and hardware portions.” (App. Br. 8).
This issue was addressed above.
It follows that Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 6 and of claim 12, which falls therewith.
IV. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
We note a possible issue with claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph. Claims 6 and 12 recite “the one counter” and “the one
value of the plurality of values” which lack antecedent basis. It appears that
“the one counter” and “the one value of the plurality of values” refer to the
earlier recitation of “a plurality of values.”
V. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under § 102(e) and
the rejection of claims 6 and 12 under § 103(a) are affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013