Appeal No. 2006-0223
Application No. 09/754,969
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 15-24 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 claims 15-24. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to independent claim 15, Appellant merely repeats the argument made with
respect to claim 1 that, “actions are taken directly with the DTD file.” We have already
addressed this argument. Appellant has not presented any argument to show that claim 15 is
separately patentable from claim 1. Therefore these claims stand or fall with claim 1, and we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 25-27 and 29-42 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 claims 25-27 and 29-42. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to claims 25-27 and 29-42, Appellant merely references the arguments made
with respect to claim 1. Therefore these claims stand or fall with claim 1, and we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007