Appeal No. 2005-0622
Application 09/911,279
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall
together (brief, page 12; reply brief, pages 2-3). The
appellants, however, regarding the rejection over Held in view of
Savu, merely recite what is in claims 21, 23 and 30, and assert
that those references do not teach or suggest what is recited,
and the appellants point out that claims 2-13, 18-21, 23 and 26-
30 recite claim features that are not in claim 1 (brief,
page 16). As for the rejection over Caiger in view of Savu, the
appellants recite what is in claims 21 and 29 and assert that
Caiger and Savu do not teach or suggest what is recited in those
claims, and the appellants again point out that claims 2-13, 18-
21, 23 and 26-30 recite claim features that are not in claim 1
(brief, page 16).2 The appellants do not provide a substantive
argument as to why the applied references would have failed to
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention recited
in each claim. The appellants= assertions are tantamount to
merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover, which
2 Although an additional reference is applied in the
rejection of claims 31 and 32, the appellants do not argue the
separate patentability of those claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007