Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
upon Browning for its disclosure of a scanner incorporated within personal
digital assistant (PDA) 10 that includes a display 22 for displaying graphical
objects [answer, page 6; see also Browning, fig. 1, col. 2, lines 52 and 53].
We further note that Browning’s PDA 10 functions (in one embodiment) as a
handheld barcode scanner [col. 3, lines 20-24]. Therefore, we agree with
the examiner that the language of representative claim 15 (i.e., “capturing
an image for further analysis”) broadly but reasonably reads on Browning’s
barcode scanner 10. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 15 as being obvious over Manchester in view of
Browning.
We further note that appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4
and 8-12. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528. See also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims as being obvious over Manchester in
view of Browning for the same reasons set forth in the rejection.
In addition, with respect to dependent claim 3, we find that the mere
arrangement of “product information” data in the instant claimed “data
store” constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material wherein the meaning of
the data is functionally insignificant to the structure of the data store. The
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007