Appeal No. 2004-0022
Application No. 09/734,807
rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Ohyama and Guertin further in view of Nomura. In addition,
claim 5 stands rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ohyama in view of Guertin, Pedder and McMillan.
Appellants submit at page 4 of the Brief that "[w]ith regard
to the rejection of Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the claims
stand or fall together." Accordingly, since appellants provide
substantive arguments only for the examiner's rejection of
claim 1 over the combined teachings of Ohyama and Guertin, all
the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we
will limit our consideration to the examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
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 those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Ohyama discloses a module provided with a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007