Appeal No. 2003-1883
Application No. 08/953,488 Page 17
(brief, page 11) to the effect that the rejection does not rely
on the teachings of Salgado and that appellants consider the
claims to rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of
Mandel. However, notwithstanding the assertion of appellants to
the contrary, we find that claims 24 and 25 are properly rejected
over the teachings of Mandel in view of Salgado because claims 24
and 25 ultimately depend from claims 21 and 23. Both of these
claims were rejected based upon the teachings and suggestions of
Mandel in view of Salgado. Thus, by their dependency, claims 24
and 25 are properly rejected over the teachings and suggestions
of Mandel in view of Salgado. We observe that appellants do not
set forth any limitations of the claims that they consider to not
be met by Mandel. From appellants' response, we find that
appellants have not complied with the procedural requirements of
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii).
From our review of the record, we find that the examiner
(answer, page 5) has provided a reasonable basis why claims 24
and 25 are considered to be disclosed by Mandel. From the lack
of a specific response by appellants, we are not persuaded of any
error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007