Ex Parte Teloh et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-0265                                                                              
                Application 09/988,853                                                                        
                             forwarding said replica of said selected data in                                 
                      accordance with a communication protocol from said data                                 
                      structure to a second data replication facility at a second                             
                      electronic device in said storage network for storage of said                           
                      replica on a second storage medium by said second electronic                            
                      device.                                                                                 

                                               B. REJECTIONS                                                  
                      Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, 20-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37-41, 43-46 and                      
                48-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent                   
                No. 6,629,264 ("Sicola").  Claims 5, 11, 17, 19, 30 and 42 stand rejected                     
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sicola and U.S. Patent                               
                No. 6,629,264 ("Wahl").  Claims 24, 36, 47 and 51 stand rejected under                        
                § 103(a) as obvious over Sicola and U.S. Patent No. 6,209,002 ("Gagne").                      

                                        II. GROUPING OF CLAIMS                                                
                      "When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are                       
                argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the                  
                group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to                 
                the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected                
                claim alone.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the                      
                failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped                   
                together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must                        
                consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately."  37 C.F.R.                       
                § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).1                                                                   

                                                                                                             
                1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the                  
                time of the Appeal Brief.                                                                     

                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013