Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
Appellants’ contentions, Moreno teaches both assigning and controlling the
locking/unlocking of the lockers by the same system. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-14 as unpatentable over Moreno and Ogilvie.
Rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, and Hall
Appellants contend that Hall fails to overcome the alleged deficiencies of
Moreno and Ogilvie presented with respect to claim 8, from which claim 11
depends (Appeal Br. 27). We find Appellants’ arguments with regard to
independent claim 8 unpersuasive for the reasons presented supra. As such, we
sustain the Examiners rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie
and Hall.
Rejection of claims 15-18 and 24-26 as unpatentable over Moreno, Ogilvie, and
Stephens
Appellants argue claims 15-18 and 24-26 as a group (Appeal Br. 28-33).
Although Appellants list elements of dependent claims 15, 17, 18 and 24-26 on
pages 30-32 of the Brief, Appellants do not provide any argument as to why the
cited art does not teach or suggest the listed elements. In particular, Appellants fail
to specifically rebut the Examiner’s findings of fact as to the scope and content of
the prior art and the determination of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013