Appeal No. 2004-0717
Application No. 10/099,605 Page 12
We next turn to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10,
12-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Goldberg in view of Kobayashi. We by affirm the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Goldberg in view of Kobayashi, in view of our finding, supra,
with respect to the teachings of Goldberg, and we find Kobayashi
to be cumulative to the teachings of Goldberg.
We turn next to the reaction of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Kobayashi
and Pearson. The examiner position can be found on pages 5, 7, 8
and 9 of the final rejection. Appellants, do not present any
substantive arguments with regard to claim 19. Although
appellants list claim 19 as being in a separate group ( brief,
pages 5 and 7), appellants have the patentability of claim 19 on
the claims dependency from independent claim 14 (brief, pages 31-
33). At the outset, we make reference to our findings, supra,
with respect to claim 14. From the back of any substantive
arguments dispute the teachings and suggestions of Meier or Lim
in combing with the other applied references, and the reasoning
set forth in the examiner’s answer, we are not convinced of any
error on the part of the examiner. According, the rejections of
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007