Appeal No. 2003-1301
Application No. 09/782,539
Appellants argue that a person skilled in the art would recognize a reader
apparatus as different from a computer. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with
appellants. While there may be a distinction in additional functionalities of the two, we
find no such limitations in the instant claim language. We find no express definition in
the specification of a reader apparatus and no discernible distinction has been
identified by appellants. Therefore, we find that appellants have not rebutted the
prima facie case of obviousness (here, anticipation) of independent claim 25.
With respect to dependent claims 26 and 30, appellants argue that Wagner does
not disclose the storage of “length of use” information as recited in dependent claim 30.
(See brief at page 8.) We disagree with appellants and agree with the examiner that
Wagner does describe at col. 5 lines 19-20 the storage of the “total turns counts
since the tool was assembled . . .” (See answer at page 3.) Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 30 and need not address the specific grouping
recited in dependent claim 26 since appellants have grouped dependent claim 26 with
dependent claim 30.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 25-28 and 30-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007