Appeal No. 2004-1677
Application 09/028,726
Claims 5 and 8-10
Appellant argues that neither Wang nor ETSI cure the
deficiencies of Chavez as to the independent claims (Br7; RBr2).
Since we find that Chavez does anticipate the independent claims,
this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant further argues that the examiner has not shown a
teaching or suggestion to combine the references (Br7). The
examiner did provide reasoning for combining the references
(FR4-5). Appellant has not attempted to point out the error in
that reasoning and the mere argument that there is no motivation
to combine is not persuasive of error.
For these reasons, we find that appellant has not shown
error in the examiner's rejection. The rejections of claims 5
and 8-10 are sustained.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007