Appeal No. 2004-0777 Page 9
Application No. 09/731,726
examples presented can be extrapolated therefrom so as to be
reasonably guaranteed as attainable through practicing the
invention as broadly claimed.
Having reconsidered all of the evidence of record proffered
by the examiner and appellants, we have determined that the
evidence of obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of
nonobviousness. Hence, we conclude that the claimed subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1-6.
Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 15
and 16 further employing the teachings of Bult, we note that
appellants have specified that all of the appealed claims stand
or fall together and do not argue the additional features set
forth in dependent claims 15 or 16 as patentably distinguishing
over the applied references. Consequently, we shall also affirm
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 16 on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogashiwa in view of
Akamatsu and to reject claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007