Appeal No. 95-3781
Application 07/978,223
polarization suggests the continuous
rotation of the polarizer."
The appellant argues that the combination recited in
claims 10-17 distinguishes over the combined teachings of the
Korth and Cohn. However, appellant has not specifically
contested any of the findings or the reasoning of the examiner
with respect to the rejection of these claims. We are of the
opinion that the findings and reasoning of the examiner in
regard to the rejection of these claims is reasonable and in
the absence of any argument by the appellant controverting the
findings and reasoning of the examiner, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 10-17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In summary, the examiner's rejection of claims 6 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed. The
examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is affirmed.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007