Appeal No. 2004-0963
Application No. 09/384,088
2 of the answer, the seven outstanding provisional obviousness-type
double patenting rejections noted earlier have not been addressed in the
brief. As such, we pro forma sustain these rejections of these claims.
As noted at the bottom of page 3 of the brief on appeal, appellants
group independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 together. Additionally, we note
these claims are the independent claims presented in the first stated
rejection and they each have corresponding limitations in respective
method, system, system and medium claims.
To simplify our decision making in this appeal, we assume arguendo
that the applied prior art is properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
each of the three separately stated rejections. Additionally, no arguments
are presented in the brief that the respective references are not properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Notwithstanding these considerations, we reverse the rejection of all
claims in the first stated rejection, including each independent claim 1, 9,
17, and 25 and their respectively rejected dependent claims essentially for
the reasons set forth by appellants between pages 5-7 of the brief. Since
our study of Tateno and Halstead is substantially in agreement with the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007