Appeal No. 2003-0587
Application No. 09/533,514
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerling in
view of Groebli, we note that appellants have again argued the
“deceleration” aspects of claim 23 as distinguishing, without any
separate argument as to the examiner’s combination of Westerling
and Groebli applied against claim 31. Having found that
particular argument unpersuasive with regard to independent claim
23, we likewise find it unpersuasive here for the same reasons.
Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerling in view
of Groebli is sustained.
In summary,
A) the examiner's rejection of claims 23, 24, 26, 29, 30 and
41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Westerling
has been sustained with regard to claims 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30,
but not with regard to claim 41;
B) the rejection of claims 23, 37, 38, 45 and 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Raudat has been sustained with regard to
claims 23 and 45, but not with regard to claims 37, 38 and 46;
21
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007