Appeal 2007-1084
Application 09/764,543
therefore the location of any respective nodes 1, 2, 3, etc. characterized as
A1, A2, B2, C1, D3, etc. The corresponding arguments beginning at page 2
of the Reply Brief are also unpersuasive of patentability.
Lastly, Appellants make reference to certain pairs of dependent claims
beginning at the bottom of page 9 of the principal Brief on appeal. In
addition to the Examiner’s correlations of specific features of Nakamura to
these dependent claims beginning at page 5 of the Answer, the bottom of
page 10 of the responsive arguments portion of the Answer addresses each
of these correlations in a more expansive manner and directly meets the
assertions made that the teachings of the respective dependent claims so
argued are not taught in Nakamura. Since there are no additional arguments
in the Reply Brief contesting the Examiner’s additional correlations
beginning at page 10 of the Answer as to these dependent claims, we affirm
the rejection of them as well.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 through 27, all claims on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013