Application No. 2006-3067
Appeal No. 09/952,953
We now consider the rejection of claims 24, 29, and 34 based on the admitted prior
art, Nomura, Inoue, and Barrett. The examiner has explained how the invention of
these claims is deemed to be rendered obvious by the collective teachings of the
applied prior art [answer, pages 5-6]. We have considered the examiner’s explanation
of this rejection, and we find that the examiner has at least established a prima facie
case of obviousness. Appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to this
rejection. Since the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to these claims, and since appellants have made no persuasive arguments in
rebuttal, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 29, and 34.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 21-36 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007