Appeal 2007-1867
Application 09/864,113
1
2 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
3 erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 under 35
4 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Odigo.com as evidenced by Surfing and
5 Odigo.com web pages.
6
7 Claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
8 unpatentable over Odigo.com and Tang.
9 The Appellants have not separately argued these claims and thus they stand or
10 fall with their base claims. Thus the Appellants have not sustained their burden of
11 showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 20, 23, and
12 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Odigo.com and Tang.
13
14 Claims 7, 16, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
15 Odigo and Kenney.
16 The Appellants have not separately argued these claims and thus they stand or
17 fall with their base claims. Thus the Appellants have not sustained their burden of
18 showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
19 § 103(a) as unpatentable over Odigo and Kenney.
20
21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
23 erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, and 27 under 35
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013