Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 20
Application No. 10/768,827
As per independent claims 1, 15, 27 and 34
Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated
these claims as a single group which stand or fall together [brief, pages 31-
33], we will select independent claim 15 as the representative claim for this
rejection because it is the broadest independent claim associated with this
rejection. See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants essentially restate the arguments previous made supra with
respect to McLain, alleging, inter alia, that McLain does not teach a data
source containing a plurality of requests acceptable to a target computing
system and a plurality of associated expected responses [brief, pages 31-
32].
We note that we have found, supra, that McLain does teach all the
limitations that appellants allege are not taught by the combination of Ryzl
and McLain [See discussion of claim 26, supra]. Therefore, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 15. We further note that
independent claims 1, 27 and 34 fall with independent claim 15 since
appellant has not separately argued the patentability of these claims with
respect to this rejection. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 15, 27 and 34 as being unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007