Appeal No. 2006-2064
Application 09/771,761
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 5-7, 19, 20, 27, and 28 in which Kruger is added to Curtis
to address, inter alia, the “reference count” feature of the rejected claims.
Appellants’ arguments in response (Brief, page 9; Reply Brief, page 7) rely
on the previously asserted contention that Curtis lacks a disclosure of the
establishment of a valid order for component installation, arguments we
found to be unpersuasive as previously discussed.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1, 8-13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26 , as well as the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and
27-31. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-31 is
affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007