Appeal No. 97-3423
Application 08/336,134
claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 3 and 12, which
appellants treat as standing or falling with claims 1 and 10,
respectively (Brief at 3).
The rejection is affirmed with respect to dependent
claims 4 and 13 on the ground that they are not separately
argued. Appellants' explanation (Brief at 6 and 9-10) of what
these claims recite is not a separate argument. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (1995) ("Merely pointing out differences in what
the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable.").
Turning now to the remaining dependent claims, claim 2
specifies that the means for customizing the hardware
configuration is capable of customizing common hardware in
various docking stations. This rejection is affirmed, because
appellants have not explained why Swindler's configuration
software does not inherently have this capability. For the
same reason, the rejection of similar claim 20 is affirmed.
Claim 5 recites, inter alia, first drive means for
driving the tray and the portable computer "into and out of"
the housing. Appellants' Figure 3 shows portable computer 13
and tray 39 in their "out of" the housing positions. The
- 12 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007