Appeal No. 2005-0077
Application No. 10/293,545
7-12 are separately patentable. However, we agree with the
examiner that the appellant has not set forth a substantive
argument for any of the claims that are asserted to be separately
patentable. As explained by the examiner, appellant simply
recites the various limitations in the separate claims without
advancing an argument why the features of the claims would have
been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, other than
for the reasons set forth for independent claims 1 and 6.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462,
1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that it was known in the art to
translate trace designs on a web continuously moving through an
etching bath. It is appellant's contention that none of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007