Appeal No. 2005-1257
Application No. 10/179,570
(b) claim 6 over the stated combination of references
further in view of Soane;
(c) claims 9, 10 and 18-20 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Domenico;
(d) claims 11-14 and 17 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Kumar; and
(e) claims 15 and 16 over the references applied in (d)
above further in view of Schnur.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 7 of appellants' principal brief, the following groups of
claims stand or fall together: (I) claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8;
(II) claims 11-14 and 17; (III) claims 15 and 16; and (IV) claims
9, 10, 18 and 19.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellants' arguments for
patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied upon in
support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as
well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning
as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007