Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
Rejection of claims 5, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Winkler, Bald and Amazeen.
We note that claim 5 depends upon claim 1. We fail to find that Winkler, Bald
and Amazeen teach “causing the test apparatus to execute a first test based on the
retrieved set of test parameters by providing a control signal to the test apparatus over
a communication link” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note that Appellants state on page 6 of the brief that claims 12 and 14 form a
sixth separately patentable group. Furthermore, we note that under the arguments,
Appellants argue claims 12 and 14 as the sixth claim group. See pages 23 and 24 of
the brief. Therefore, we will treat claims 12 and 14 as standing or falling together and
will treat claim 12 as the representative claim.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided sufficient motivation to
modify Winkler to obtain identification and create a data record using the identification
and test results. See pages 23 and 24 of the brief.
We note that the Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Amazeen
teaches the input devices further operable to obtain an identification associated with the
device wherein the processor is further operable to generate a data file base on the
information representative of the test measurement data and associated with the
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007