Appeal 2007-0973
Application 10/254,835
any of the Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection. We sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
Appellants place remarks for claims 2, 3, 19, and 28 under separate
headings in the Brief. The remarks, however, consist of repeating
limitations from the dependent claims, and submitting that Bowers fails to
disclose or suggest the respective limitation because Bowers fails to disclose
the limitation. To the extent the remarks may be considered separate
arguments for patentability, the arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s position as set out in the Answer. The rejection applied against
the dependent claims does not assert that Bowers discloses the limitations,
but that the limitations would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
the reference. Appellants having not shown error in the rejection of any of
claims 1-26 and 28, we sustain the § 103 rejection over Bowers.
We agree with Appellants, however, that the evidentiary basis for the
rejection of claim 27 is insufficient. We do not sustain the rejection of the
claim. We enter a new ground of rejection against claim 27, infra.
New ground of rejection
We enter the following new ground of rejection against the claims in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b): Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,570,490 B1 (“Saitoh”).
Claim 27 Saitoh
A method of operating a non-contact Describes a method of operating a
identification device, comprising: contactless IC card (identification
device)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013