Appeal 2007-2384
Application 10/943,424
express language of independent claim 1 since we find no mention of
diffusion or prevention thereof in the language of independent claim 1.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
From our review of the teachings of Ryu and Bae, we find that the
Examiner has made a persuasive initial showing which we do not find has
been adequately rebutted or shown error therein by Appellants. Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim
21 and those claims grouped therewith by Appellants at page 9 of the Brief.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 9, 22 and 29, Appellants merely
reiterate the language of the claim and advance the same arguments set forth
with respect to independent claim 1 and independent claim 21. We do not
find these to be separate arguments for patentability, and Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection using the combination of Ryu,
Bae, and Kim, Therefore, we will sustain the rejections of dependent claims
2, 9, 22, and 29.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013