Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
Dependent claims 8-10
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 8-10. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 8 and 10 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller in view of Barnett for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 6.
Independent claim 11
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11 as
being as being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller.
Appellants argue that Huemoeller fails to teach or suggest the
following limitations: (1) an interface module for connecting to an active
environment to receive active information, wherein the interface module
receives active information by linking with a portable user device as the
portable user device enters the active environment, and (2) a portable device
(or interfacing with a portable device) to receive information for an active
environment (Br. 16-17).
We begin our analysis by looking to the Specification for context. We
find Appellants have defined the recited term “active environment” with
broad, sweeping scope, as follows:
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013