Appeal No. 98-0588
Application 08/501,293
Tymes, Tremmel, Moellering and Shepard is improper, since the
examiner failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.106(b), which
appellants state “requires the examiner to clearly explain the
pertinence of each reference.” (Paper No. 17 at 6). We agree
that the examiner did not make clear how the references of
Tymes, Tremmel, Moellering and Shepard applied to the
rejection in the final office action. However, in the
examiner’s answer the examiner made clear the rejection and
the pertinence of Reddersen and Tymes. (Paper No. 21 at 4).
Furthermore, the appellants responded to the examiner’s
particular comments regarding the Tymes and Reddersen
references in a Reply Brief. (Paper No. 22). Therefore, the
appellants’ arguments in the brief that the examiner failed to
comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.106(b) are moot. Through the
examiner’s answer, the examiner did describe the pertinence of
Reddersen and Tymes.
In the appellants’ reply brief, the appellants argue that
neither Reddersen nor Tymes discloses: 1) a scanner capable of
selecting between a plurality of host computers, 2)
incorporating radio transmitters within the scanner and within
each host computer, and 3) a radio transmitter within the
scanner that could be programmed to a particular one of a
plurality of communication channels, which is associated with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007