Appeal No. 1997-4423
Application No. 08/355,009
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of the applied references establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
in claim 1, and we will sustain the rejection. Inasmuch as
the appellant has chosen not to separately argue the
patentability of dependent claim 3 (Brief, page 8), it falls
with claim 1, from which it depends. See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
presented by the appellant. However, they have not persuaded
us that the rejection of claims 1 and 3 should not be
sustained. Our position with regard to the various arguments
should be apparent from the rationale we have set forth above.
In addition, we wish to point out that Bloom and Kenichi were
cited for their teachings of controlling shutters in microwave
apparatus by means of operating members located outside of the
chambers, and the fact that distinctions can be made between
the structure and the function of the claimed apparatus and
those of these references does not detract from the suggestion
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007