Appeal No. 2004-0609 5
Application No. 09/900,787
programming the chart recorder by correlating the position of the marking pen 108 relative
to the chart recorder paper 102 during the selection of an optional set point.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained because Levine teaches all of
the method steps of this claim. The anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 8 is
sustained because appellant has chosen to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (brief,
page 3).
The anticipation rejection of claim 11 is sustained because the “printed parameters”
in Levine are the two set points 124 and 126. The anticipation rejection of claims 12
through 14 is sustained because appellant has chosen to let these claims stand or fall with
claim 11 (brief, page 3).
The obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 16 is sustained because appellant has
not presented any patentability arguments for these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 10 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007