Appeal No. 2005-0255 Page 9
Application No. 10/190,475
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14, 16 and 18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection
Claims 17 and 21 which depend from claim 13 have not been separately argued
by the appellant. Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be treated as
falling with their respective independent claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swengel in view of Travis is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 13, 14, 16 and 18 to
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007