Appeal No. 2003-0523
Application No. 09/100,952
shall explain how such limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over the
prior art.”).
We thus select instant claim 1 as representative of the invention. To the extent
that appellants’ remarks might be considered to include arguments for separate
patentablility, we refer to the examiner’s findings in the Final Rejection and the Answer
in support of the instant rejection. We have considered all of appellants’ arguments, but
are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s determination of obviousness as to any of
the claims.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Young, Lawler, and Yuen.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007