Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
claim 1 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder (see
Issues 1 and 2).
I. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claim 28 (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 Abe 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).
J. We note that the patentability of independent claim 31 turns
upon our findings of fact and conclusion of law with respect to
Issues 3 and 4. Because we have found the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issues 3 and 4,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Fielder.
K. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claim 32 (see Br. 14). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim as being unpatentable over
Anderson in view of Fielder, and further in view of McGrath
for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 31 as being unpatentable over Anderson in
view of Fielder (see Issues 3 and 4).
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013