Appeal No. 2004-2219 Page 7
Application No. 09/927,009
Turning to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Graham in view of
Anderson, we note that Appellant’s arguments focus on the limitations of claim 1 and what
Graham teaches with respect to those limitations.1 For the reasons expressed above, we conclude
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed, but the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
1Appellant also discusses the limitations of claim 2, however, claim 4 is dependent on either claim 1 or
claim 2 in the alternative. We select claim 4 as dependent from claim 1 to address the issues on appeal. We,
therefore, need not address the arguments directed to the limitations of claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007