Appeal No. 2005-0579
Application No. 09/887,910
Aronowitz. Claims 13 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goeckner in view of Aronowitz
and further in view of Chen.
Appellants submit at page 7 of the Brief that "[f]or the
purpose of this appeal, all the claims stand or fall together."
Accordingly, since appellants have not separately addressed the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 13 and 16-19 over the
combination of Goeckner, Aronowitz and Chen, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will limit our
consideration to the examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 1 over
Goeckner in view of Aronowitz.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the affidavit evidence relied upon
in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter 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
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants acknowledge that "[a] tool is described in the
present patent application from page 5, line 3 to page 9, line 4,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007