Appeal No. 2006-2198 Page 10
Application No. 10/074,499
does not establish any difference between the device suggested by the prior art and the
device defined by instant claim 22. Appellants have pointed to no limitation in claim 22
that is not suggested by the prior art, or explained how the language of claim 22 limits it
to the embodiment shown in Figure 3. Since Appellants have not distinguished the
claimed invention from the prior art, they have not rebutted the examiner’s rejection.
Summary
The examiner has shown that claims 1 and 22 would have been obvious to those
of ordinary skill in the art. We therefore affirm the rejection of those claims. Claims 2, 7-
9, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21 fall with claim 1 and claims 3, 10, 24, and 26 fall with claim 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora M. Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/dym
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007