Appeal 2007-0786
Application 10/262,142
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 6, 14, and 15 on the bases of
their dependency from independent claim 1 or 12 and the fact that Applicants’
admitted prior art does not remedy the deficiencies of Cesta asserted by Appellants
in connection with the above Section 102 rejection. Because Cesta does not teach
a processor function embedded with a resource (Finding of Fact 5) and Appellants
do not admit such a structure to be prior art, the Examiner has not made out a
prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 6, 14, and 15.
C. Rejection of claims 11, 20-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cesta in view of RFC 2739.
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 11 and 20 on the bases of their
dependency from independent claim 1 and 12, respectively, and the fact that RFC
2739 does not remedy the deficiencies of Cesta asserted by Appellants in
connection with the above Section 102 rejection. Because neither Cesta nor RC
2739 teach a processor function embedded with a resource (Findings of Fact 5-6),
the Examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 11
and 20.
With respect to claim 21, Appellants argue that “[n]othing in Cesta, et a1 or
RFC 2739 taken alone or together shows or suggests a controller embedded with a
resource as specifically recited by claim 21.” (Br. 15). The Examiner found that
Cesta discloses a controller embedded with the resource (Answer 9). The
Examiner decided that “[u]ntil the claims are specifically amended to define
‘embedded’ as being location specific, Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] argued
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013