Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480
consider claim 6 as being representative of the group of claims included in this
rejection. Appellant has not provided arguments directed specifically to this
group of claims, rather appellant’s arguments are directed to the combination of
Yu and Benveniste, which form a part of the rejection of these claims.
As stated supra, we find that claim 6 includes limitations of similar scope
to claim 1. Since appellant has provided no additional arguments addressing this
rejection. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste and Borst for the reasons stated supra
concerning the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yu and Benveniste.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 USC
§103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Benveniste, Borst and Przelomiec. As
stated supra we, consider claim 4 as being representative of the group of claims
included in this rejection. Appellant has not provided arguments directed
specifically to this group of claims, rather appellant’s arguments are directed to
the combination of Yu and Benveniste which form a part of the rejection of these
claims.
As claim 4 is ultimately dependent upon claim 1, it necessarily includes the
same limitations considered supra with respect to claim 1. As appellant has
provided no additional arguments concerning this rejection, we will sustain the
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007