Appeal 2007-1404
Application 10/212,316
We disagree that Owen is non-analogous art at least for the reason
that, as the Examiner notes, the reference describes vehicle communication
systems. See Owen, col. 9, ll. 32-56. As we have indicated, however, the
teachings of Owen can be considered merely cumulative in view of the
scope of instant claim 7.
Claim 7 is the representative claim argued by Appellants. We sustain
the rejection of claim 7, and of claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 that fall with claim
7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As Appellants rely on the arguments for
claim 7 for response to the rejection of claim 12, neither are we persuaded
that claim 12 has been rejected in error. We sustain the rejection of claim
12.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 7 and 10-14 under U.S.C § 103(a)
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).
AFFIRMED
tdl/ce
STEPHEN A PENDORF
PENDORF & CUTLIFF
5111 MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
TAMPA FL 33634-7356
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013