Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 27
Application No. 09/468,292
Issue (6)
We next consider Issue (6), i.e., the rejection of claims 34-36, 38, 39, 44, and 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Frigo and Freemantle and further in view of Biefeld or Hartmann. The
claims stand or fall together (Amended Brief, p. 5). We select claim 34 to represent the issues on
appeal.
The Examiner addresses all the limitations of claim 34 and finds a reason, suggestion or
motivation in light of the prior art (Answer, pp. 14-16). Appellant does not advance any
additional arguments over and above those already addressed above. As we have already
addressed those arguments, no further explanation is required here. We conclude that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of
claim 34 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
Issue (7)
Under Issue (7), claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Frigo,
Freemantle and Biefeld or Hartmann and further in view of AAPA.
The Examiner’s reasoning is the same as that presented for Issues (2) and (6) and
Appellant advances no additional arguments. We, therefore, conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 37 which has not been
sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007