Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 teachings of Kolosov, Garr, and O’Rear or Gatto. Final Office Action
2 mailed November 4, 2005 at 12; Answer at 10.
3 The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings or the
4 Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as to claim 22 in the Appeal Brief.
5 Rather, the Appellants argue that Garr does not cure the deficiencies of
6 Kolosov, O’Rear, and Gatto as to claim 15. Appeal Brief at 19-20.
7 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov and O’Rear
8 or Gatto render obvious the subject matter of claim 15. Therefore, there are
9 no deficiencies that Garr must cure.
10 6. Double patenting rejections
11 The Appellants do not challenge the double patenting rejections on
12 appeal. Rather, the Appellants state, “Upon resolution of all outstanding
13 issues remaining in this application, Appellants will submit a Terminal
14 Disclaimer to obviate the provisional rejections.” Appeal Brief at 21.
15 F. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
17 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 10, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
18 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov and O’Rear
19 or Gatto.
20 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
21 Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
22 unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov and Perez.
23 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
24 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
25 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, McFarland, and
26 O’Rear or Gatto.
24
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013