Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Chiloyan US 2002/0083228 A1 Jun. 27, 2002
(filed Dec. 21, 2000)
Claims 15-18 and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Chiloyan.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Chiloyan (Answer 4; Final Rejection 2-6).3
Regarding representative claim 15,4 Appellants argue that Chiloyan does not
disclose any association between the device identification numbers and the
3 We note that the Examiner’s answer does not detail the Examiner’s
grounds of rejection with particularity, but merely indicates that claims 15-
18 and 20-23 stand finally rejected (Answer 4). We presume that the
Examiner intended to incorporate the grounds of rejection of these claims
articulated in detail in the Final Rejection mailed May 4, 2005 in the
Answer. We remind the Examiner, however, that such incorporations by
reference are improper under current practice. See MPEP § 1207.02 (“An
examiner's answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior
Office action without fully restating the point relied on in the answer.”); see
also Ex parte Metcalf, 67 USPQ2d 1633, 1635 n.1 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
2003).
4 Appellants indicate that arguments pertaining to “Ground No. 2” apply to
all appealed claims (Br. 4). Accordingly, we select claim 15 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013