Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
Again, for the reasons supra, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because we find that Levine
does provide for the broadly claimed “programming” in the
programming of the set points.
With regard to claim 10, appellant argues that the arcs 124
and 126 in Levine have been placed on the paper by an operator
using a keypad and “are not moved over alphanumeric terms for
programming purposes” (brief-page 7). We are unpersuaded as
there is nothing in the claim precluding the use of a keypad.
Moreover, we have treated the “programming” aspect of the claim
supra, with regard to the set points of Levine.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
In considering appellant’s arguments and finding none to be
persuasive of patentability, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1-7 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Turning to the rejection of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, appellant merely asserts, generally, at page 7 of the
brief, that the rejection is improper because the examiner has
not provided a reason to combine the references. However, the
examiner has clearly provided such a reason at page 10 of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007