Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 26
Application No. 10/768,827
As per dependent claims 20 and 22
Appellants argue that dependent claims 20 and 22 are patentable over
Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of Flynn, for at least the same
reasons that claim 15 is patentable over Ryzl in view of McLain [brief, page
45]. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for
the same reasons we sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as being
unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain, as discussed supra.
As per dependent claims 30 and 33
Appellants argue that dependent claims 30 and 33 are patentable over
Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of Flynn, for at least the same
reasons that claim 27 is patentable over Ryzl in view of McLain [brief, page
45]. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for
the same reasons we sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 27 as being
unpatentable over Ryzl in view of McLain, as discussed supra.
As per dependent claims 10, 21 and 31
Appellants argue that dependent claims 10, 21 and 31 are patentable over
Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of Flynn, because these
references do not teach or suggest “wherein said verifying comprises
verifying that the format of said at least one file conforms to a standard
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007