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