Appeal No. 2005-0509 Page 10
Application No. 09/449,237
II. Whether the Rejection of Claim 82 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 82. Accordingly, we
affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 82, Appellant argues at page 14 of the
brief, that neither reference teaches “”fitness related data” as the data entered
and accessed in the database. As we have discussed above with respect to
claim 81, the type of data does not functionally change either the data storage
system or communication system used in the method.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claim 85 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 85. Accordingly, we
affirm.
With respect to independent claim 85, Appellant repeats the arguments of
claim 81 at pages 11-13 of the brief. We find these arguments unpersuasive for
the reasons already discussed above with respect to claim 81.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007