Appeal No. 2002-1398
Application No. 08/572,474
the examiner’s reference to Travis’ teaching re unpacking and
packing (brief-page 11). But, instead of arguing why it is
believed that this teaching would not have made the instant
claimed subject matter obvious, appellants merely assume,
arguendo, that the unpacking/packing is analogous to appellants’
demarshalling/marshalling, and rely on their arguments with
regard to the independent claims.
Similarly, appellants do not separately argue the merits of
the sending a return message limitation of claims 5, 9, 16 and
23, but let the patentability of these claims stand or fall with
the patentability of the independent claims (brief-page 11).
Also, claims 13, 14, 18, 20, 21 and 25 stand or fall with their
independent claims because they are not argued individually (see
brief-page 12).
As to claim 6, appellants argue that the instance handle of
Travis is not equivalent to a key, as claimed, and that there is
no mention “in the applied portion of Travis of component keys
(ckeys). Appellants agree that Travis teaches an instance handle
comprising multiple parts, but they are not component keys”
(brief-page 12).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007