Ex Parte NUXOLL et al - Page 10




              Appeal No. 2002-0275                                                                                      
              Application No. 09/215,752                                                                                

              features that are argued.  Having not persuaded us of error in the rejection, we sustain                  
              the rejection of claim 40.                                                                                


                     Section 103 rejections -- dependent claims 4, 6, 11, 12, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43-45,                    
              and 47                                                                                                    
                     We do not sustain the section 103 rejection of claim 4 or 6, since the claims                      
              depend from independent claim 1 and the rejection does not remedy the deficiency in                       
              that applied against claim 1.                                                                             
                     With respect to claims 11, 12, 38, 39, 44, and 45, appellants assert features of                   
              the claims (Brief at 13), relying on alleged deficiencies in the rejections, each of which                
              we address elsewhere in this opinion.  Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of                        
              nonvobviousness.  We sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, 38, 39, 44, and 45.                          
                     With respect to claim 41, appellants argue (Brief at 11-12) that Maruyama does                     
              not teach or suggest receiving or transmitting attribute data in a “soft format,” which is                
              not persuasive in view of the actual requirements of claim 41.  The additional                            
              arguments, nominally in defense of claim 41, are not in the form of separate arguments                    
              for patentability, but appear to relate to the supposed patentability of base claim 35.  We               
              are not convinced of error, and sustain the rejection of claim 41.                                        
                     With respect to claims 36, 43, and 47, appellants argue (Brief at 12-13) that the                  
              object-oriented database of Maruyama would not be able to store data values received                      
              in a “soft format,” and therefore it would not have been obvious to transmit the second                   
                                                         -10-                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007