Appeal No. 2003-1442
Application No. 09/359,037
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 14 and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Johnson and Okajima.
Appellants’ arguments as to this rejection at the bottom of page
14 of the principal brief on appeal do not argue that the
references are not properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 and
do not argue against the examiner’s views with respect to
Okajima. Rather, appellants’ arguments focus upon Okajima as not
providing the earlier argued deficiencies that appellants set
forth with respect to Johnson. Since we have found that Johnson
teaches those alleged deficiencies, the rejection of dependent
claims 14 and 46 is sustained.
Appellants’ grouping of the claims at the top of page 7 of
the principal brief on appeal and the substance of the brief and
reply brief both indicate that only the independent claims 1, 12,
15, 22, 39, 40 and 42 have been argued by appellants. We have
treated each of these separately in each of the separately stated
rejections. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we have
sustained the rejections of claims 12, 13, 15 through 17, 40, 42,
45, 48, 49, 55 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the rejection of
claims 14 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such, the decision of
the examiner rejecting the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007