Appeal 2007-1280
Application 10/894,950
recited in independent claim 1 rather than in dependent claim 2. Moreover,
the additional arguments presented at page 10 relate to features of claim 1
and not in claim 2 as well. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 for
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer.
Next, we turn to the rejection of claim 3. The further additional
reliance upon Bloom is argued not to teach or suggest the missing elements
described in claim 2 at the bottom of page 10 of the principal Brief on
appeal. Appellants do not argue that the combination of the references does
not meet the features of claim 3 and relies for patentability upon features
recited in claim 2. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 in the third
stated rejection for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
Having already addressed the features of independent claim 9 in the
fourth stated rejection earlier in this opinion, we treat the argued dependent
claims beginning at page 11 of the principal Brief on appeal. With respect to
the features of dependent claims 10 and 11, the Examiner argues that figure
6 of Lenormand shows the coupling of a receiver unit 86 to a routing unit
88, where this routing unit 88 is said to be equivalent to the first sorter OR
the second sorter of the instant claim at the top of page 7 of the Answer.
Appellants mistake this characterization at the bottom of page 11 of the
principal Brief on appeal by indicating that the Examiner considers the
routing circuit 88 to be equivalent to the first sorter AND the second sorter.
As to the features in dependent claim 10, we agree with the Examiner’s view
that routing circuit 88 does perform the claimed function of the first sorter in
claim 10.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013