Appeal No. 2005-1632
Application No. 10/448,194
that we will address infra, appellant’s remarks in the Brief are not arguments for
separate patentability of claims. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13,
2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September
7, 2004)) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
We select claim 68 as a representative claim in our review of the § 102 rejection
over Deaton. To the extent that appellant’s remarks might be considered separate
arguments for patentability, we refer to the examiner’s findings in the Final Rejection
and the Answer in support of the rejection against dependent claims, which are not
addressed by appellant.
The points of contention in the rejection of claim 68 relate to the system
architecture and networking that is disclosed by Deaton. Appellant seems to change
the rejection that is applied and argue against the nonexistent rejection.
The examiner finds that Deaton discloses a plurality of retailer POS systems as
claimed. A plurality of retailer POS systems are depicted in Figure 1; i.e., remote
systems 110.1 The rejection is based on what appellant denominates the “second claim
construction” (Brief at 17.) The pages of appellant’s Brief setting forth how the
transaction terminals 120 cannot meet the terms of the claimed plurality of systems,
while ultimately correct, are inapposite.
1 As noted by the examiner, reference numeral “10” in the remote system shown in detail should
be “110.”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007