Appeal No. 2003-0231 Page 13
Application No. 09/749,372
The appellant's argument is unpersuasive since the examiner has cited and
applied the reference to Young in the rejection of claim 12. The appellant has not
specifically contested the rejection of claim 12 based on the combined teachings3 of
Yuen and Young as applied in this rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) requires the
argument in a brief to specify the errors in the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, and, if appropriate, the specific limitations in the rejected claims which are not
described in the applied prior art, and shall explain how such limitations render the
claimed subject matter unobvious over the prior art. Since the appellant has not
specified any error in the examiner's determination that the limitations not disclosed by
Yuen would have been obvious to one skilled in the art from the teaching of Young, we
are constrained to sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable
over Yuen in view of Official Notice and Young. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 112. second paragraph, is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; and the decision of
3 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007