Appeal 2007-0915
Application 10/764,946
1 Since Applicants do not separately address dependent claim 5 in the
2 Appeal Brief or Reply Briefs (FF 9), claim 5 stands or falls together with the
3 base rejection and therefore the rejection of claim 5 is also sustained.
4 E. Decision
5 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
6 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
7 unpatentable over Clegg is affirmed.
8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
9 with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
mv
cc (U.S. Mail):
John L. Rogitz, Esquire
Rogitz & Associates
750 B Street, Suite 3120
San Diego, CA 92101
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013