Appeal 2007-2458
Application 10/006,577
Appellant has grouped the claims into two groups. Group 1 consisting
of, independent claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, and Group 2, consisting of dependent
claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14. Appellant’s statements on page 15 of the
brief do not specify why the claims in Group 2 are separately patentable
from the claims in Group 1. As such, we do not consider Appellant to have
separately grouped the claims in Group 2. Thus, in accordance with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) we group all of the rejected claims together and we
take claim 1 to be representative of the claims, which reads as follows:
1. A notification system for communicating between a sender
cellular phone and a receiver cellular phone comprising:
a system configuration for allowing said sender cellular phone
to transmit an ON state indication signal indicating to switch
ON a main power source of said receiver cellular phone
through a radio wave to said receiver cellular phone being in
an OFF state,
such that said main power source of said receiver cellular phone
is remotely turned ON.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fukuda US 6,169,905 B1 Jan. 2, 2001
Gillig US 4,989,230 Jan. 29, 1991
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in indicating that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious. More specifically,
Appellant has argued that the limitations in the independent claims are not
disclosed or suggested in any cited portion of Fukuda or Gillig. (Br. 8).
Appellant also argues that the disclosure of Fukuda fails to teach or suggest
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013