Appeal No. 95-3388
Application 08/242,993
the rejection is based upon a combination
of references, the argument shall explain
why the references, taken as a whole, do
not suggest the claimed subject matter, and
shall include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in
one reference may not properly be combined
with features disclosed in another
reference. A general argument that all the
limitations are not described in a single
reference does not satisfy the requirements
of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that this board is not under any
greater burden than the court which is not under any burden to
raise and/or consider such issues. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 26, 28, 30 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dhong and the
Examiner's rejection of claims 27 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Dhong and Kawai.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 26 through 28, 30, 31 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, but we reverse the rejection of
claims 1 through 25, 29 and 32 through 34 and 36 through 42
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007