Appeal No. 2000-0180
Application No. 08/539,943
this regard, we note that appellant has not disputed the
examiner’s combination of Sugawara with the teachings of
Samson and Goy, but has instead merely relied upon the same
argument presented above that Samson and Goy do not provide
any reason, suggestion or motivation for combining their
teachings; an argument that we have already found
unpersuasive. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise be sustained. Given
appellant’s grouping of the claims (brief, page 4), it follows
that claims 6 through 12 and 14 will fall with claim 5.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 1, 3, 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Samson in view of Goy is affirmed, as
is the examiner’s decision to reject claims 5 through 12 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Samson
in view of Goy and Sugawara.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we also enter
the following new ground of rejection against claims 5 through
8 and 14 on appeal.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007