Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
It follows that we sustain the Section 103 rejection of
claims 20-26 as being unpatentable over Holl, Wilding or Dubrow.
THE SECTION 103 REJECTION BASED ON HOLL, WILDING OR DUBROW IN
VIEW OF MASTRANGELO
The only argument presented by the appellants in their brief
with respect to this rejection is that “Mastrangelo fails to cure
the deficiencies of WO 99/60397 [i.e., Holl], Wilding or DuBrow”
(brief, pages 23-24). For reasons fully detailed above, we share
the examiner’s view that the primary references are not deficient
in the manner urged by appellants. Thus, the argument under
review lacks convincing merit.
Accordingly, we also sustain the Section 103 rejection of
claim 7 as being unpatentable over Holl, Wilding or Dubrow in
view of Mastrangelo.
SUMMARY
We have sustained each of the rejections advanced by the
examiner on this appeal except for the Section 102 rejection of
claim 5 as being anticipated by Wilding.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007