Appeal No. 2004-1676
Application 09/263,918
computers for the same reason. We conclude that it would have
been obvious to implement the software SAR functions taught by
Kwak on the CPU of a personal computer.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that appellants'
have not shown error in the examiner's rejection. The rejection
of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-16 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007