Appeal No. 2004-0777 Page 9 Application No. 09/731,726 examples presented can be extrapolated therefrom so as to be reasonably guaranteed as attainable through practicing the invention as broadly claimed. Having reconsidered all of the evidence of record proffered by the examiner and appellants, we have determined that the evidence of obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness. Hence, we conclude that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-6. Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 16 further employing the teachings of Bult, we note that appellants have specified that all of the appealed claims stand or fall together and do not argue the additional features set forth in dependent claims 15 or 16 as patentably distinguishing over the applied references. Consequently, we shall also affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 15 and 16 on this record. CONCLUSION The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogashiwa in view of Akamatsu and to reject claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007