Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
As to the remaining rejections of substantially all of the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, we
sustain the rejections essentially for the reasons set forth by
the examiner in the answer as embellished upon here. In
accordance with appellant’s characterization of the issues at the
bottom of page 12 of the principal brief on appeal and the
grouping of the claims at page 13 of this brief, the nature of
the arguments actually made with respect to these art rejections
beginning at the bottom of page 15 of the principal brief on
appeal presents arguments only as to the subject matter of
independent claims 1, 11 and 21 on appeal rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102. In so doing, appellant has presented no
arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
dependent claims 8, 18, and 28, preferring that patentability
issues regarding these claims be determined on the basis of our
findings with respect to the rejection of their respective
independent claims 1, 11 and 21 on appeal.
As noted at the bottom of page 7 of the answer, the examiner
correctly characterizes that appellant presents similar arguments
with respect to each independent claim 1, 11 and 21 on appeal at
respective pages 16, 19 and 20 of the brief by arguing “van Nee
fails to teach the exclusion of mathematical operations that are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007