Appeal No. 2002-2334
Application 09/097,235
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, and 29. Appellants have
made no separate arguments with respect to this rejection and
instead have relied on the same electrical isolation argument
asserted against representative claim 12, an argument we found to
be unpersuasive for all of the reasons discussed supra.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of all of the claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 12-30 and 34 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:psb
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007