Appeal 2007-0932
Application 10/058,924
Likewise, the mere assertion is made that Kuperstein does not make up for
the deficiencies of McDonald and Wang as to claim 1. No arguments are
presented per se as to independent claims 15 and 19 within this stated
rejection. The rejection of all these claims in the third stated rejection is
sustained.
Appellants present arguments at pages 28 and 29 of the principal Brief
on appeal as to the fourth stated rejection of dependent claims 8, 18, and 22
where the Examiner relies upon McDonald in view of Wang, further in view
of Kuperstein and TIFF. It is noted that the subject matter of dependent
claims 8, 18, and 22 is substantially the same as or identical to the subject
matter of dependent claims 4, 11, and 13, which have not been argued by
Appellants in the second stated rejection as we noted earlier in this opinion.
The assertion that the Examiner has not provided any evidentiary bases for
motivation to reject claims 8, 18, and 22 belies an understanding of the
record before us. Contrary to the assertion made at page 28 of the principal
Brief on appeal – fifth, there is no requirement that an explicit motivation be
found within the cited references per se, even though we have buttressed the
Examiner’s positions earlier with respect to the combinability of McDonald
and Wang anyway. The mere dependency of claims 8, 18, and 22 from
independent claims 1, 15, and 19 is argued in effect as a basis for
patentability based upon the features recited in those independent claims.
Appellants have presented no arguments to us as to any feature recited in
these dependent claims or otherwise contest the applicability of the
respective teachings of Kuperstein and TIFF the Examiner relies upon to add
to those of McDonald and Wang. Moreover, no arguments have been
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013