Appeal No. 2000-1593
Application 08/724,459
interface with conventional small computers which are equipped
with PCMCIA slots. Once this obvious modification to Suomi has
been made, the question remains whether the radio transceiver of
Suomi would then be received within a PCMCIA slot as claimed.
The examiner provides a cogent argument as to why the language of
claims 1 and 8 should be considered to be met by this proposed
modification. In our view, the examiner has at least established
a prima facie case of the obviousness of claims 1 and 8.
Appellants have presented no persuasive rebuttal arguments
responsive to this claim interpretation by the examiner
explaining why the examiner’s analysis is flawed. Without such
persuasive arguments, we agree with the examiner that the
rejection of claims 1 and 8 should be sustained.
Although claims 2-4 were rejected based on the additional
teachings of Robinson, appellants have not separately argued the
rejection of claims 2-4. In fact, appellants indicate that for
purposes of this appeal, claims 2-4 stand or fall with
independent claim 1 [brief, page 4]. Since appellants have
presented no arguments with respect to claims 2-4, we also
sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007