Appeal 2007-1468
Application 09/912,784
Independent claim 22 recites “wherein the radio module scans for
wireless access points, and indicates the availability of a wireless access
point, both while the computer system is powered-off.” This limitation is
similar to the limitation discussed above with respect to claim 17. As
discussed above with respect to claim 17, we find that the combination of
AARA and Ishigaki does not teach this feature. The Examiner has not
asserted nor do we find that Sporty teaches this limitation. Thus, we do not
reach the second issue as we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22
and 23 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 17.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17 through 31, 34, 38,
and 45 through 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 through 44.
Further, we note that should there be further prosecution of this application
Appellants and the Examiner should take steps to clarify the ambiguities
noted in footnote 1.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013