Appeal 2007-0642
Application 10/267,877
in the Examiner rejection of dependent claim 2, we will sustain the rejection
of dependent claim 2.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 5, Appellants rely upon the
base argument that modem 364 of Wallace does not have the function of a
performing power-on reset operation to boot an internal system program
(Br. 14-15). As discussed above, we did not find this argument persuasive
with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive with respect to dependent claims 3 and 5. Appellants argue that
there is no showing by the Examiner that the prevention signal if it existed
would be both a hold signal and a reset signal (Br. 15). This argument is
not commensurate in scope with the express limitations of dependent claims
3 and 5 since each claim only has one of the signals recited. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Additionally, Appellants have
elected to group both dependent claims 3 and 5 together under a single
heading. Therefore, since we find no persuasive argument to dependent
claim 3, we sustain the rejection thereof and further sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 4, 5, and 6 as being not separately argued.
With respect to independent claim 13, Appellants rely upon the same
arguments as advanced with respect to independent claim 1 (Br. 16). Since
we did not find those arguments persuasive with respect to independent
claim 1, we similarly do not find reliance thereon persuasive with respect to
independent claim 13. We find no limitation in independent claim 1 of a
masked program and find that Appellants have identified no express support
in the Specification for the masked program. We will therefore group
independent claim 13 with independent claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013