Appeal 2007-0959
Application 10/082,893
transferred to Davis’ Ethernet device is necessarily sent to this embedded
memory.
For at least these reasons, Davis fully meets independent claim 1.
Since Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of claims 2-30
with particularity, these claims fall with independent claim 1. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not established that the
Examiner erred in finding that the disclosure of Davis anticipates the claims.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013