Appeal No. 2004-1461
Application No. 09/461,883
As noted above, the dependent claims fall with the
independent claims because they have not been separately argued
for patentability. With respect to claims 13 and 37, which are
rejected using the additional teachings of “Official Notice,” we
also sustain the rejection of these claims. The examiner’s
explanation of this rejection is sufficient to have established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Since appellants have not
offered any arguments in rebuttal with respect to this rejection,
the prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22-30, 32-35 and
37-39 is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007