Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fox.
Rejection of claims 21, 22, 36 through 39.
Appellants argue, on page 13 of the brief, that the rejection of claims 21,
22 and 36 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fox is
improper for the reasons asserted with respect to independent claims 12 and 32.
We concur. In rejecting these claims, the examiner has provided no
additional evidence, which overcomes the deficiencies in the rejection of claims
12 and 32 noted above. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 21, 22 and 36 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 40 through 42.
Appellants argue, on pages 13 and 14 of the brief, that Fox does not teach
or suggest the claim 40 limitation of “ a label containing information pertaining to
at least one attribute of at least a portion of the computer equipment, wherein
said at least one attribute changes from time to time and wherein said label is
adaptable to contain information reflecting said changes.” Appellants reason
that Fox is concerned with a keyboard support which has no changing attributes
as such one would not expect the information to change over time and that Fox
does not teach that the card is modifiable.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007