Appeal No. 2004-0381
Application No. 09/924,267
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Arai in view of Kawaguri
and McAleer.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arai in view of Kawaguri and McAleer and
further in view Karube and Omoto.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Arai in view of Kawaguri and McAleer and
further in view of Maley.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Arai in view of Kawaguri and McAleer and
further in view of Carter.
On page 5 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim 10 in this
appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(C)(7) and (8)(2002).
OPINION
I. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner’s position regarding this rejection is set
forth on pages 4-5 of Paper No. 21.
On page 10 of the answer, the examiner correctly points out
that appellants do not address the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 10, 11, 13-16, 18-22, and 25.
In view of the fact that appellants did not argue this
rejection, we are constrained to affirm this rejection of claims
10, 11, 13-16, 18-22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007