Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
have not presented any substantive arguments directed to the separate
patentability of these dependent claims. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand or fall
with the representative independent claims. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8,
14-18, 21, 23-28, 30-36, 38-41, 43, and 45-52 as being unpatentable over
August in view of DiPietro and Witkowski for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to independent claims 1, 20, and 37.
Claims 6 and 44
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6 and
44 as being unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Brooks and
Miyahira.
Appellants argue that the combination of August, Brooks, and
Miyahira does not overcome the deficiencies of August (App. Br. 9).
Specifically, Appellants contend that neither Brooks nor Miyahira, nor a
combination of the two, teaches “the merchant station adapted to provide an
order selection menu to the wireless communication devices to facilitate a
transaction, the order selection menu comprising a text description and an
image associated with at least one item on the order selection menu,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 37 (Id.). Appellants point out
that the Examiner has acknowledged in the Final Office Action (p. 4) that
August does not teach these limitations (Id.).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013