Appeal No. 2003-0755
Application No. 09/190,993
Lastly, we find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ generalized
assertion (Brief, page 5) that the Examiner has not established
proper motivation for the proposed combination of Williams and
Teicher. As previously discussed, the Examiner’s stated rationale
for the proposed combination, i.e., the advantages of local and
server wallet portion synchronization, is clearly suggested by
Teicher and, in our view, would be clearly recognized and
appreciated by the skilled artisan as an obvious enhancement to the
system of Williams.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of representative claim 14, and claims 15-24
which fall with claim 14.1
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14-24 is affirmed.
1 Although the Examiner has added Biffar to the combination of Williams
and Teicher to address the applications connector features of dependent claims
23 and 24, Appellants have made no separate argument for patentability of
these claims, instead relying on arguments made with respect to independent
claim 14.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007