Appeal No. 2002-1940
Application 08/932,649
more specific version, clearly the subject matter of very broad
independent claims 15 and 24 would have been even more obvious to
the artisan.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by appellants' arguments at page
9 of the principal brief on appeal as to dependent claims 2, 3
and 25. Appellants merely "submit" that the portions relied upon
by the examiner do not contain the alleged teachings and provide
no other detailed discussion other than this general urging of
patentability. On the other hand, we are persuaded of the
unpatentability of these claims by the examiner's discussion of
them beginning at page 8 of the answer where the examiner goes
into great detail corresponding the teachings of the references
to the respective features claimed. We therefore sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3 and 25. Appellants' general
mention of these claims at page 3 of the reply brief is
unpersuasive in countering the arguments of the examiner in the
answer as to these claims as well.
In conclusion, we are unpersuaded by appellants' basic
urgings in the brief and reply brief that there was no motivation
for the artisan to have combined the teachings and suggestions of
Kuo and Aviv and, even if the combination was proper, that the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007