Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 25, 32 and 33. With respect to those arguments which are
the same arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1,
these arguments have been decided adversely to appellant for
reasons discussed above. With respect to the new argument made
in the reply brief, we fail to see how that argument relates to
the claimed invention and the findings made by the examiner.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
each of independent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 25, 32 and 33 based on the
teachings of Hotaling taken alone. Since appellant has not
argued any of the dependent claims which are also rejected on
Hotaling taken alone, we sustain the rejection of these dependent
claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
independent claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13,
14, 17 and 18 based on Hotaling and Tognazzini. Appellant’s only
argument with respect to this rejection is that Tognazzini does
not overcome the deficiencies in Hotaling discussed above [brief,
pages 7-8]. Since we have found that Hotaling is not deficient
in supporting the examiner’s rejection, this argument by
appellant fails to overcome the rejection. Therefore, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007