Appeal No. 97-2782 Page 12
Application No. 08/368,993
The examiner determined that claims 27, 28, 30-32, 35-38
and 42-44 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made for the reasons set
forth on pages 3-5 of the final rejection and pages 3-6 of the
answer. The appellant has not contested these determinations.
Instead, the appellant only points out (brief, pp. 15-17 and
reply brief, pp. 1-3) the differences between the claimed
subject matter and Bergh. However, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv)
requires the argument in a brief specify the errors in the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and, if
appropriate, the specific limitations in the rejected claims
which are not described in the applied prior art, and shall
explain how such limitations render the claimed subject matter
unobvious over the prior art. Thus, the appellant has not
provided any explanation as to how the limitations not
disclosed by Bergh render the claimed subject matter unobvious
over Bergh. Accordingly, since the appellant has not
specified any error in the examiner's determinations that the
limitations not disclosed by Bergh would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art, we are constrained to sustain the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007