Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant’s arguments as to claims 3 and 12, at page 5 of
the brief, appear to rely on their dependency from claims 2 and
9, respectively, rather than on the specific limitations of
claims 3 and 12. Accordingly, for the reasons supra, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Similarly, the arguments regarding claims 4, 5, and 11, at
page 5 of the brief, appear to rely on the arguments set forth
anent the claims from which these claims depend. Accordingly, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 11 for the reasons
supra, regarding the independent claims.
With regard to claims 6 and 12, appellant stresses that the
claims contain certain “options,” such as probe type, chart
speed, chart type, etc. The examiner pointed to column 1, lines
64-67, of Levine, wherein the recorder may be used to “directly
control equipment in accordance with the set points...” in order
to show visible options/printed parameters and how they relate to
external control.
Appellant argues that what are disclosed in Levine are not
options, but rather control equipment that may be driven by the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007