Appeal No. 2005-2433
Application No. 10/259,789
For the reasons noted above, appellant’s argument that Fujita lacks any disclosure of
a “directed link,” and the attempt to argue that the terminology “directed link” used in the
claims on appeal has a more limited or special meaning are unavailing.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fujita. Given the indication in the
“Grouping of Claims” section on page 2 of the brief that “[t]he claims stand or fall
together,” we conclude that claims 2 through 9, 11, 13 through 21, 23, 25 through 33, 35
and 37 through 39 will fall with claim 1. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of those claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fujita will likewise be sustained.1
1 In the event of any further prosecution of the present application, the examiner
and appellant should review the “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent
Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” published in Volume 1300 of the
Official Gazette, November 22, 2005, pages 142-153, particularly ANNEX IV, section
(C) “Electro-magnetic Signals,” with an eye toward determining if claim 13 of the present
application and the claims which depend therefrom are directed
to statutory subject matter. In addition, the examiner and appellant should evaluate
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007