Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
col. 6, l. 36). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 8 as being unpatentable over Bork in view of Hendrey.
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed to the
separate patentability of dependent claims 9-13 and 15. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-13 and 15 as being unpatentable
over Bork in view of Hendrey for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 8. See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Claims 16-21 and 23
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 and 23 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey. Since
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select
independent claim 16 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
Appellant argues that the combination of Bork and Hendrey does not
teach or suggest the recited limitations of:
wherein the processor instructs the display to list a plurality of
other computing devices located within a range of the
transmitter, sorted in order of at least one of the distance and
the direction from the wireless communication device;
(Claim 16; see also App. Br. 11).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 16
for essentially the same reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer,
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013