Appeal No. 2006-1139
Application No. 09/740,977
argument as to this claim and so we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claim 9, appellants argue that Manson does not provide for the
claimed limitation as argued by the examiner. More specifically, appellants indicate that
the template 200 discussed at column 9, lines 55-62, is not utilized for programming the
appliance but rather for entering and executing various diagnostic routines (principal
brief-page 19). We agree. The portion of Manson relied on by the examiner is directed
to diagnostics. We find no indication therein that would have suggested a security
device such that when activated, there is a change from operation mode to
programming mode. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. §103.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 2 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b)
and of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103, but we have not sustained the rejection of claims
1, 3-7, 9-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136 (a)(1) (effective September 13, 2004).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007