Appeal No. 2006-1757
Application No. 10/116,522
are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In
re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978); In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508-09, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). On
the other hand, ample factual evidence exists to support the
examiner's position that certain NVRAM devices inherently contain
registers.2 The examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 8,
17, and 26 based on the disclosure of Cepulis is proper and is
therefore sustained.
Since appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, 20-25, and
27, these claims fall with independent claims 1, 10, and 19. See
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
In summary, we have sustained the examiner's rejection with
respect to all claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-27 is affirmed.
2 See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Re. 38,660, col. 10, lines 11-16 (noting that a micro-
controller can access registers in an EEPROM); U.S. Pat. 6,708,273, col. 72,
line 38 - col. 73, line 45 (describing EEPROM registers); U.S. Pat. 6,043,943,
col. 3, lines 31-34 (noting that registers 28 can comprise dedicated permanent
memory such as an EEPROM).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007