Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of
Fielder (see Issues 1 and 2).
F. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claims 17 and 18 (see Br. 10). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Singer for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim
1 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder (see Issues
1 and 2).
G. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claim 19 (see Br. 11). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Perks for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim
1 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder (see Issues
1 and 2).
H. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claims 21 and 22 (see Br. 11). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claims as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Kesselman for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013