Appeal No. 2000-0811
Application 08/964,734
to attachment to another substrate by being melted and fused by
exposure to energy beam 32 (see column 3, lines 46-49 of Trabucco
‘737).
With regard to each of dependent claims 2-6, 12 and 14, the
appellants only reiterate the added feature of the respective
dependent claim and then concludes that “[n]o such step is taught
by Trabucco in the combination as claimed.” On page 3 of Paper
No. 6, the examiner specifically pointed out where in Trabucco
‘737 is each of the added features disclosed. The appellant does
not point out and explain why the examiner’s specific findings on
page 3 of Paper No. 6, which refer by page and line number to
Trabucco, ‘737 are wrong. It appears that the appellants’
argument is only that because Trabucco ‘737 does not disclose use
of a “decal” as is argued in connection with independent claim 1,
everything that has to do with a “decal” in the added feature is
necessarily not described or disclosed. If the appellants are
arguing something else, then the argument has not been adequately
presented or explained and thus we have not been shown any error
by the examiner in connection with what the examiner has
determined.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-6, 12, and 14-16 as being anticipated by Trabucco ‘737.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007