Appeal 2007-0902
Application 10/077,500
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Since we find no argument
advanced by Appellants persuasive of an error in the Examiner’s initial
showing, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5-7 which Appellants have not set forth separate arguments
for patentability.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants rely on the same
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we did not
find persuasive (Br. 7). Similarly, we do not find these arguments
persuasive with respect to independent claim 11. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 11-13, and 15-
18 which Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for patentability.
With respect to independent claim 19, Appellants rely on the same
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we did not
find persuasive (Br. 7). Similarly, we do not find these arguments
persuasive with respect to independent claim 19. Therefore, we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 19.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 14, 8-10, and 20-22,
Appellants rely on the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claim 1 and contend that the teachings of Iwai and Umeda do not remedy the
argued deficiencies in the base combination (Br. 8). Since we found no
deficiency in the base combination, we do not find this argument persuasive,
and we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 14, 8-10, and 20-
22.
With this as a background, we additionally enter a New Grounds of
Rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013