Appeal No. 1997-4129
Application 08/237,988
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellants state that "claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 stand or
fall together" (Br4). This means that we should decide the
appeal by selecting a single claim from the group. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1996). However, Appellants argue the
various limitations of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 in the Brief.
Although Appellants have not complied with the regulations
regarding the grouping of claims, we address all of the
claims because of the similarity in claim language.
Obviousness
We agree with Appellants' argument (RBr1-2) that the
Examiner changes the rejection in the Examiner's Answer to
rely for the first time on the subsequent initial program
load (IPL) using configuration data sent back from the
terminal, rather than relying on general statements about
the IPL in Hughes as was done in the Final Rejection. For
this reason, the arguments in the Brief are no longer
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007