Appeal No. 1998-1257
Application 08/337,095
With respect to the features recited in claims 21-26
regarding the actuation or prevention of actuation of an
audible indicator, the appellant’s appeal brief does not
advance any pertinent argument to demonstrate that the
rejections should be overturned. Accordingly, the appellant
has shown no basis for a reversal of the rejection of claims
21-26. It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error in
the examiner’s rejection. That burden has not been met in the
case of claims 21-26. We sustain the rejection of claims 21-
26.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lindmayer is reversed.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lindmayer and Kurozu is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lindmayer, Kurozu, and Tomoda is
affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007