Appeal No. 2003-0901
Application 09/303,368
do not find any basis which compels reading two devices into the
invention of claim 1.
Appellants indicate that the claims stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 5]. Nevertheless,
appellants refer to the limitations of several other claims on
page 8 of the brief. Since this portion of the brief does
nothing more than recite the limitations of other claims on
appeal and make a general assertion that Blinn does not teach or
suggest these limitations, we find that this portion of the brief
does not constitute a valid separate argument for patentability.
Therefore, all the other claims on appeal fall with claim 1 for
reasons discussed above.
We now consider the rejection of all pending claims based
on the teachings of Johnson. The examiner finds that Johnson
teaches the claimed invention except that Johnson does not teach
two separate processing systems, that is, a pre-processing system
and a processing system. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to modify the integrated Johnson
system so as to split the processing disclosed therein into two
separate processing systems as claimed [answer, page 5].
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007