Appeal No. 2004-1002
Application No. 09/682,001
Appealed claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khutoryansky.
Claims 6, 7 and 10-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Khutoryansky in view of Tam and Sata.
Appellant submits at page 10 of the brief that “[t]he claims
stand or fall together respecting the issues on appeal”.
Accordingly, claims 11-21 stand or fall together with independent
claim 10.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with the appellant that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for the method defined in independent
claim 1. However, we agree with the examiner that the subject
matter of independent claim 10 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejections 1, 2, 5-7, 9 and 23, but we will
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10-21.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007