Appeal No. 2005-0376
Application No. 10/034,120
packetize data in order to send the data from point A to point B over an appropriate
network.
We sustain the rejection of claims 27 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Massaloux, Tomoyuki, and Wood.
Claims 25 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Massaloux, Tomoyuki, Wood, and
Alanara)
Appellants argue (Brief at 28-29) that claims 25 and 36 are “improperly rejected”
because Tomoyuki was not listed in the statement of the rejection. Appellants are
correct with respect to error in the listing of references. However, the statement of the
rejection (Final Rejection at 7) refers to the rejection of claims 3 and 14 (rejected over
Massaloux, Wood, and Alanara), which contain similar limitations with respect to a
hangover portion. The rejection of claims 25 and 36 should also have listed Tomoyuki,
as base claims 23 and 32 are rejected over Massaloux and Tomoyuki.
In any event, appellants’ position to the extent it addresses the substance of the
teachings of any of Massaloux, Tomoyuki, Wood, and Alanara is not persuasive. Since
the decision to reject claims 25 and 36 has not been shown as erring in substance, we
sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Massaloux, Tomoyuki, Wood, and Alanara.
CONCLUSION
-14-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007