Appeal 2007-2223
Application 09/975,168
Rejection of Claims 21-25
With respect to the rejection of these claims, Appellants rely on the
same arguments previously raised for claim 1 and assert that Polczynski
adds nothing to the combination of Sharma and Kartalopoulos that would
have made the subject matter of claims 21-26 unpatentable (Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 5). Therefore, in light of our findings above and the absence of
specificity in Appellants’ arguments, we find the Examiner’s position that
the teachings of Sharma, Kartalopoulos and Polczynski suggest the subject
matter of Claims 21-25 to be reasonable. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Because Appellants have failed to point out any error in the
Examiner’s position, we are affirming the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections with
respect to claims 1-20 over Sharma and Kartalopoulos and with respect to
claims 21-26 over Sharma, Kartalopoulos, and Polczynski.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013