Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the
limitations of the claim to which it refers.” (See 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph). Here, we again find the Examiner has erred because the
Examiner has previously acknowledged that August does not teach the
limitations argued by Appellants (See Answer 4 where the Examiner relies
on DiPietro for teaching the order selection menu and associated
limitations). In the rejection of dependent claim 22, the Examiner merely
relies on Wilson for teaching transponders that transmit vehicle information
(See Answer 9). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22
as being unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of Wilson
because Appellants have shown the Examiner’s proffered combination fails
to teach all the limitations subsumed in dependent claim 22 by virtue of its
dependency upon independent claim 20.
Claims 29 and 42
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 29
and 42 as being unpatentable over the teachings of August in view of
Camaisa.
Appellants argue that the combination of August and Camaisa does
not overcome the deficiencies of August (App. Br. 11). Specifically,
Appellants contend that Camaisa does not teach “communicating an order
selection menu from the merchant service terminal to the telematics control
unit over a wireless channel, 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 independent claim 20 and similarly recited in
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013