Appeal No. 2002-2276
Application No. 09/472,702
respect to claims 2-4, the extent of Appellants’ arguments
(Brief, pages 6 and 7) is to repeat the language of the claims
with a general allegation that the references do not teach or
suggest the claimed limitations. Simply pointing out what a
claim requires with no attempt to point out how the claims
patentably distinguish over the prior art does not comply with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8) and does not amount to a separate argument
for patentability. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, our review of the
Examiner’s position finds no error in the Examiner’s analysis
(Answer, page 8) which identifies corresponding structure in the
disclosure of Chambers as well as establishing proper motivation
for combining Chambers with Luo so as to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of all of the claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-4, 11, 12, 20, and 21 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007