Appeal No. 2004-0890
Application No. 09/754,291 Page 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements and Kim. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements, Kim and Sinclair. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of
Clements, Kim and Kahley.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant states that “[c]laims 2-17 and 19-21 stand or fall
together with the independent claim from which they depend”
(brief, page 4). Moreover, appellant does not furnish separate
arguments for independent claims 1 and 18. Consequently, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we base our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007