Appeal No. 2002-1214
Application No. 09/062,046
IV.
The Examiner rejected claims 27 to 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miller and either Alexander or Horvath.
Appellants argue that these claims are “allowable as depending from independent
claim 1.” (Brief, p. 18). The Examiner has presented reasonable arguments as to
why the invention of the claims 27 to 32 are unpatentable. The Appellants have not
rebutted the Examiner’s position that the additional limitations of claims 27 to 32
are unpatentable. Thus, for the reasons stated above and in the Answer, the
rejection is affirmed.
V.
The Examiner rejected claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
not having proper antecedent. (Answer, pp. 3-4). Appellants argue that the
rejection is not substantive and can be over come by amending the claim. (Brief, p.
8). Since the Appellants have not specifically rebutted the Examiner’s rejection, we
affirm.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007