Appeal No. 2000-1593
Application 08/724,459
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, appellants note
what these claims recite and simply assert that the applied prior
art does not teach or suggest these features. These broad
assertions do not constitute an explanation of why the rejection
is inappropriate. The examiner has addressed the obviousness of
these limitations in the rejection [answer, page 4]. Since
appellants have not responded to the reasons for the rejection as
set forth by the examiner, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 6 and 7.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-8 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007