Appeal No. 2005-1329 3
Application No. 10/187,038
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-noted rejections and
the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we refer to the examiner’s answer (mailed September 21, 2004) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (filed July 12, 2004) for appellant’s
arguments to the contrary.
OPINION
Before turning to the merits of the examiner’s position, we note that on page 5 of
the brief, appellant has indicated that claims 1 through 4 are grouped to stand or fall
together. Thus, we select claim 1 as being representative of this grouping and will
decide the appeal as to that claim alone, with claims 2 through 4 standing or falling with
our determination concerning claim 1.
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal has included a
careful assessment of appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art
references, and the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that the evidence relied
upon by the examiner is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to appellant’s claim 1. Our reasoning in support of that
determination follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007