Appeal No. 2006-1881
Application 10/145,408
At the outset, we note that no arguments are presented in the brief with respect to
independent claim 45. According to page 4 of the final rejection and page 5 of the
answer, claim 45 is included within the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Because no arguments are presented regarding the patentability of independent 45 in the
brief or reply brief, we summarily sustain the rejection of this claim. We note further that
pages 31 through 39 of the brief apparently reargue the subject matter presented earlier in
the brief at pages 21 through 29 with respect to independent claims 16, 17, 28, 39, 41, 43
and 49. The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 11 through 13 of the answer
recognize this and no additional arguments are presented in the reply brief.
Correspondingly, no substantive arguments are presented in the brief as to the second
stated rejection as to claims 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 and 50.
The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 11 through 13 of the answer
generalize appellant’s arguments bearing on each claim on appeal and presented first with
respect to the transversal of the rejection of independent claim 1 beginning at page 19 of
the brief. Appellant presents in each case the common argument that terminal 500 in
figure 27 of Ker does not constitute a bi-directional pad providing both input and output
as recited in each independent claim 1, 7, 16, 17, 25, 28, 47 and only impliedly recited in
the respectively remaining independent claims 39, 41, 43 and 49. The reply brief does
not contest these observations of the examiner. With respect to the examiner’s
responsive arguments at pages 11 and 12 of the answer, appellant again asserts at the top
of page 7 of the reply brief that the terminal pad 500 in figure 27 only outputs
information and thus recites only a unidirectional pad.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007