Appeal No. 2002-2203 Page 7
Application No. 09/584,526
For the foregoing reasons, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 12.
In that appellant has not offered a separate argument as to the patentability of claim 13
but simply relies on the above arguments as to the combination of Bruce and Calcar
which we have not found persuasive, it follows that we shall also sustain the rejection of
claim 13 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Calcar and Maus. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 12 and 13 and reversed as to claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007