Appeal 2006-2523
Application 10/206,496
The references relied on by the Examiner with respect to the grounds
of rejection are:
Adachi US 6,194,069 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
Atarashi US 6,207,280 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
“BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION,” Specification ([0002]-[0010])
(hereinafter Background of the Invention).
The Examiner rejected appealed claims 1 through 10, 13, and
15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over admitted prior
art in the Background of the Invention in view of Adachi (Answer 3-7); and
appealed claims 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over admitted prior art in the Background of the Invention in view of
Adachi, further in view of Atarashi (Id. 7-8)
Appellants specifically argue independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 and
group dependent claims 13 and 15 with claim 6, dependent claims 17 and 18
with claim 16, and dependent claim 20 with claim 19 (Br., e.g., 17-23, 24,
26, 27, and 28). Appellants argue the limitations of dependent claims 2
and 7 with specificity (Br. 19 and 20). Appellants set forth the limitations of
dependent claims 3 through 5 and 8 through 10 but do not argue the
patentability of these limitations over the applied prior art with specificity
(Br. 19 and 20-21 ). In this respect, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) states in
pertinent part, “merely [pointing] out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” Appellants
argue claims 11, 12, and 14 involved in the second ground of rejection as a
group (Br. 27-29). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed
independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 and dependent claims 2, 7, and 11 as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013