Appeal No. 2006-1576 8
Application No. 10/223,170
Based on appellant’s statement on page 2 of the main brief,
and the failure to argue any of the dependent claims separately, we
also conclude that claims 2 through 4, 7, 10 through 12, 16 and 21
will fall with claim 1. Thus, the examiner’s rejections of claims
2 through 4, 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 10 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urbanosky in
view of Wagner, and claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urbanosky in view of Culpepper, are also
sustained.
In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007