Ex Parte Ulrich et al - Page 13



            Appeal 2007-2869                                                                                
            Application 10/286,535                                                                          
            Sakayanagi and McGaffigan.                                                                      

            Rejection of claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan,                    
            and Bleske                                                                                      
                   Appellants argue claims 6 and 36-41 as a group (Appeal Br. 15-16).  As                   
            such, we select claim 36 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims 6 and              
            37-41 stand or fall with claim 36.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).                        
                   Appellants contend that Bleske fails to overcome the alleged deficiencies of             
            Sakayanagi and McGaffigan presented with respect to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15).                    
            We find Appellants’ arguments with regard to independent claim 1 unpersuasive                   
            for those reasons presented supra.  As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of             
            claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan, and Bleske.                     

                                        CONCLUSIONS OF LAW                                                  
                   We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in                    
            rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-27, 42 and 43 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi and                
            McGaffigan, and claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi,                             
            McGaffigan, and Bleske.                                                                         
                                                DECISION                                                    
                   The Examiner’s decision under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7,             
            10-27, 42 and 43 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi and McGaffigan, and claims                     
            6,and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan, and Bleske is                          
            sustained.                                                                                      

                                                    13                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013