Appeal No. 2006-0277
Application No. 10/234,305
known” nor does appellant offer any argument showing any error in
the examiner’s position as to why it would have been obvious to
artisans to modify the teachings of CyberDiner to provide for
wireless connections. Appellant’s mere recitation of a difference,
without a patentable distinction, does not constitute a convincing
argument for unobviousness.
Further, appellant argues that the system of CyberDiner is
“structurally different” from the system of claim 1 (brief-page 9).
However, appellant never points out what those “structural
differences” are. Clearly, the nature of the information being
entered into the apparatus does not constitute a “structural
difference.”
Having considered each and every one of appellant’s arguments,
but finding none convincing of patentability, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
We also will sustain the rejection of claims 3-7 under 35
U.S.C. §103.
Claim 3 calls for the network being the Internet. Clearly,
CyberDiner discloses the network as being the Internet (second
paragraph). As for appellant’s argument that the information
remotely received in CyberDiner not being information regarding a
−7−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007