Appeal No. 1997-0899
Application No. 08/127,268
any discussion to the contrary” [brief, page 12]. This
argument alone would not be sufficient to support the separate
patentability of claim 2 because it provides no meaningful
analysis. In the reply brief appellants argue that the prior
art does not teach the including step of claim 2 [pages 8-9].
As noted above, the transmission of data from the primary
station in Mabey clearly identifies which secondary stations
are to receive messages during the next data period. If the
synchronizing message is considered to include the control
information of Mabey, then the including step is clearly
suggested by the collective teachings of Mabey and Fujiwara.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 10.
With respect to the claims of Group III as represented
by claim 4, appellants again simply argue that “[n]either
Mabey nor Fujiwara, alone or in combination, disclose or
suggest the above limitations, and the 6/27/95 Office Action
is devoid of any discussion to the contrary” [brief, page 13].
Again, this argument alone would not be sufficient to support
the separate patentability of claim 4 because it provides no
meaningful analysis. In the reply brief appellants argue that
Mabey operates to power down a station when all information
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007