Appeal No. 2004-0008
Application No. 09/547,627
The brief argument set forth at the bottom of page 7 of the
principal brief on appeal does not argue against the
combinability of Walker as to independent claims 48 and 49 with
the noted secondary reference to Gisby, and also does not argue
against the combinability of Walker with Jolissaint as to claim
50. The arguments there as well do not argue that the examiner’s
reliance upon the additional teachings of Gisby and Jolissaint
are not specifically taught in these respective references as
alleged by the examiner. Even though appellants’ argue at the
bottom of page 7 that all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are to
be considered together, there appears to be no arguments at all
presented as to the second stated rejection of dependent claims
45 and 47 in view of the collective teachings of Walker and
Rogers. Page 2 of the supplemental reply brief indicates the
rejection of these dependent claims “fall with the claims from
which they depend.”
No arguments at all were presented as to dependent claim 46.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed. On the other hand, the examiner’s decision to reject
claims 44 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed, and the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007