Appeal 2007-2680
Application 10/756,352
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and not persuaded
for the reasons below.
Regarding the non-analogous art argument, Appellant has not argued
how any specific reference of the applied prior art is not in the same field of
endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved. Based upon
our review of the applied prior art, we find the applied prior art to be either
in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem to be
solved.
Regarding Appellant’s lack of motivation argument, the Examiner has
provided reasons for the various combinations (Answer 4-16). Appellant’s
broadly stated argument is not a sufficient rebuttal of the Examiner’s
specific motivation determination.
For the above reasons, we also affirm the following rejections: (1)
claims 7, 12, 13, 17-19, 22, and 25 under § 103(a) over Bauer in view of
Kato and Daniels, (2) claims 6-10 and 13 under § 103(a) over Bauer in view
of Kato, Daniels and Beavers, (3) claims 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 under § 103(a)
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels and Haga, (4) claim 11 under § 103(a)
over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Ikeda, (5) claim 15 under §
103(a) over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Vacha, (6) claim 16
under
§ 103(a) over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels and Bell, (7) claim 20 under
§ 103(a) over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga and Masuda, and (8)
claim 21 under § 103(a) over Bauer in view of Kato, Daniels, Haga, Masuda
and Elmore.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013