Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 17, and 20, but reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 18, and 19.
OPINION
At pages 5-8 of the Brief, Appellants contend that the restriction
requirement was improper. However, restriction requirements are
petitionable to the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, not
appealable to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.44 and M.P.E.P. §§ 1002.02(c)(2) and 1201. Therefore, this matter is
not before us.
In addition, we note that the Examiner (Answer 5) withdrew the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, second paragraph. Thus, the
arguments at pages 9-14 of the Brief, directed to those rejections, are
considered moot.
Regarding claims 1 through 3, 6, and 7, Appellants contend (Br. 15-
18) that there is no motivation to combine Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger.
Specifically, Appellants contend (Br. 15-17) that Nordenstam teaches using
Bluetooth, wherein the terminals are slaves to a host, which acts as the
master, and the terminals can only transmit data at the specific times
established by the host, not continuously. Cory, on the other hand,
continuously transmits data. Therefore, according to Appellants (Br. 18), to
incorporate the teachings of Cory, Nordenstam would have to be redesigned
in a manner that would change the principle of operation of Nordenstam’s
system. However, Nordenstam discloses (Nordenstam 13:6-16) that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013