Appeal No. 2005-1781
Application No. 09/860,407
examiner has made a blanket rejection, we do not agree. The
examiner has clearly considered each of the elements of claim 28
in the rejection. Appellants have elected not to argue the
specific findings made by the examiner with respect to each of
the claimed elements. Since the only arguments made by
appellants are not persuasive of error in the rejection, the
examiner’s rejection has not been overcome.
With respect to independent claim 32, appellants make the
same general argument that we considered above. Appellants also
argue that the examiner’s interpretation fails to identify the
recited relationship between the various claim elements [brief,
pages 11-12]. The examiner responds to the general argument in
the same manner noted above. The examiner also responds that the
computer-based system of Quixtar inherently employs machine-
readable code or objects. The examiner notes that the rejection
explains how the claimed objects are taught by Quixtar [answer,
pages 16-17].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 32-34 for
the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. With respect
to appellants’ general argument that the examiner has made a
blanket rejection, we do not agree. The examiner has clearly
considered each of the elements of claim 32 in the rejection and
explained how the objects claimed therein are taught by Quixtar.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007