Appeal No. 2005-0175 Page 3
Application No. 09/241,700
Claims 9-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Henley in view of Winningstad. Claims
11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Henley in view of Winningstad and Shiomi.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis and completeness.
Concerning the examiner’s first stated rejection, appellant
(brief, page 3) states that “claims 10 and 11 rise or fall with
claim 9" and that claim 12 stands separately, with claim 14
rising or falling therewith. See page 3 of the brief.
Consequently, we select claim 9 as representative of a first
group of claims including claims 9-11 and claim 12 as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007