Appeal 2007-1780
Application 10/340,127
secondary indicia of nonobviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Grasso in view
of Doss.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 7
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed to
the separate patentability of dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 7. In the absence
of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims
stand or fall with the representative independent claims. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Grasso in view of Doss for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Independent claim 16
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Grasso in view of Schwab.
Appellants contend there is no motivation to combine Grasso with the
teachings of Schwab. Specifically, Appellants argue:
Grasso and Schwab cannot make obvious Claim 16 because no
motivation exists to combine Grasso and Schwab as suggested
by the Examiner. For example, no motivation exists to combine
Grasso and Schwab to achieve a wireless transmitter to provide
audio from an information handling system to a wireless
receiver associated with earphones storable in an “earphone
storage mechanism integrated with the portable housing.” The
large earphones of Schwab are not sized to suggest such a
combination.
(Br. 4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013