Appeal 2007-1464
Application 10/276,285
microprocessor system as utilized in the specification includes a CPU. As such,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-16 as anticipated by Zittlau.
Rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Zittlau and Zydeck
Appellants argue that claim 17 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 16
(Appeal Br. 13). We were not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as to the
patentability of claim 16. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17
as unpatentable over Zittlau and Zydek for those reasons presented, supra, with
respect to claims 9-16.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Zittlau, and claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zittlau and Zydek.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-16 as anticipated by Zittlau
and claim 17 as unpatentable over Zittlau and Zydek is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013