Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1
2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
3 appeal is:
4 Chader 5,617,857 Apr. 08, 1997
5 Acker 6,453,190 Sep. 17, 2002
6 (eff. Filed Dec. 10, 1998)
7
8 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-23, 25-29, 31-34, 80-100, 102,
9 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as being unpatentable over
10 Chader.
11 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-23, 25-29, 31-34, 80-100, 102,
12 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as being unpatentable over
13 Chader in view of Acker.
14 We observe at the outset that Appellants only present arguments with
15 respect to independent claims 1, 23, and 29. Accordingly, we select these
16 claims as representative of the group; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). With
17 regard to the rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Chader,
18 Appellants contend that in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner has not properly
19 considered the invention of claim 1 as a whole, and has not considered the
20 disclosure of Chader as a whole, because Chader only contemplates a smart
21 instrument that is hard-wired to the computer system. It is argued that if it
22 were an easy expedient, Chader would have described both wired and
23 wireless systems. (Br. 4.)
24 Appellants further contend that Chader never disclosed or suggested
25 the concept of recognizing the device and beginning the act of querying the
26 device as required by claim 1, when the device is placed within the field of
27 view of the system. (Id.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013