Appeal No. 2005-1839
Application No. 09/471,101
circuitry (i.e., relay 220) is operatively connected with the
network socket 100 and the controlled power output socket 15, and
the controlled power output socket 15 can be turned on/off in
response to a signal received on a control signal pin connection
of the network socket 100. Nothing in the claims on appeal
precludes the presence of modem 40 in the telephone network
(reply brief, page 8). The power input connection to an external
power source is provided by power cord 95. In summary, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 13 is sustained based upon
the teachings of Lord.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 through 9, 14,
16, 17, 21, 23 through 31 and 33 through 37 is sustained because
appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner provisionally rejecting claims
1 through 3, 5 through 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 through 31 and
33 through 37 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed, and the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, 13,
14, 16, 17, 21 through 31 and 33 through 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007