Appeal No. 2002-1280
Application 08/995,996
code set in the receiver, and the control function is
carried out only when the received user defined code matches
the user defined code stored in the receiver.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Karasawa et al. (Karasawa) 4,786,900 November 22, 1988
Drori 5,146,215 September 8, 1992
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drori and Karasawa.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 17) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 22) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 28) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The examiner finds that appellant has not provided separate
arguments supporting the statement that the claims do not stand
or fall together (EA2). Appellant responds that separate
arguments are provided in the sub-section entitled "Grouping of
Claims" appearing in section VIII of the appeal brief (RBr2).
The rules provide that "[m]erely pointing out differences in
what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are
separately patentable." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) (2000). The
discussion in the "Grouping of Claims" in section VIII of the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007