Appeal 2007-1979
Application 10/041,141
We agree with the Examiner. The claims on appeal do not
specifically state what qualifies as “corresponding” text to the validation
error. Thus, we find that the Examiner correctly applied a broadest
reasonable interpretation to the term “corresponding.”
CONCLUSION OF LAW
After consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we find that the
Appellants have not successfully rebutted the Examiner’s positions.
Accordingly, the Examiner has established the obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5
to 7, and 10 based upon the teachings of Upton, Jeffries, and Homer. The
obviousness of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 has been established by the Examiner
because Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims apart from the arguments presented for claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, and 10.
DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 10 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
pgc
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 3020
BOCA RATON FL 33487
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013