Appeal No. 2003-1973
Application No. 09/192,952
frequency operation” (page 3 of principal brief, second)
paragraph).
Claims 1-19 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Dennen in view of Matsumoto.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the principal brief that
“[c]laim [sic, claims] 1, 7 and 13 along with dependent Claims
2-6, 8-12 and 14-19 may be grouped together” and “dependent
Claims 21-23 also may be grouped together and are separately
patentable.” Accordingly, claims 7, 13, 2-6, 8-12 and 14-19
stand or fall together with claim 1, and claims 22 and 23 stand
or fall together with claim 21.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within
the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections for
essentially the reasons set forth in the answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007