Appeal 2007-1736
Application 10/979,129
Claims 9-15
Regarding representative claim 9,6 Appellants argue that the prior art
does not disclose comparing data read at first and second sensing points to
determine if the data matches (Br. 7). For the reasons previously discussed,
however, we find Calvesio amply suggests this limitation and the reference
is reasonably combinable with Ritter.7 Since Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, the
rejection of claims 9-15 is sustained.
Claims 17-26
Regarding representative claim 17,8 Appellants argue that the prior art
does not disclose comparing data read at first and second verification
devices is compared at a computer as claimed (Br. 8). For the reasons
previously discussed, however, we find Calvesio amply suggests this
limitation and the reference is reasonably combinable with Ritter.9 Since
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness, the rejection of claims 9-15 is sustained.
Claim 27
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Calvesio in
view of Ritter and further in view of Suzuki. We find that (1) the Examiner
6 Appellants argue claims 9-15 together as a group. See Br. 7. Accordingly,
we select claim 9 as representative.
7 See p. 6-9, supra, of this opinion.
8 Appellants argue claims 17-26 together as a group. See Br. 8.
Accordingly, we select claim 17 as representative.
9 See p. 6-9, supra, of this opinion.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013