Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
Regarding claim 12, Dinkin teaches a computer. As discussed
supra, Nykoluk teaches a label operative to move in and out of a bezel
with stops and support structure, which is, mounted independent of the
bezel. With regard to claim 40, as discussed supra the information on a
luggage tag is considered to change from time to time. Further, though
the information on a luggage tag may be different from information
pertaining to an attribute of the computer equipment1 as stated supra, the
claimed information does not functionally relate to the claimed “device for
storing information.” As such the information on the label will not
distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentablility.
Conclusion
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
considered final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
1 We make no findings as to whether the scope of the phrase “attribute of the computer equipment” includes
the identification of the owner of the equipment.
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007