Appeal No. 2005-2150
Application No. 10/407,084
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, and
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and
Burdick. To this basic combination, the examiner adds: Kenny with respect to claims 2,
9, and 15; Quirk with respect to claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 19; Nakamura with respect
to claims 4 and 17; and Kraft with respect to claims 7, 13, and 20.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 10, 2004) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Dec. 27, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the
Brief (filed Oct. 8, 2004) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
We find that appellants in the Brief submit arguments commensurate with instant
claim 1 and provide separate arguments for the subject matter of dependent claim 7.
Accordingly, we select those claims as representative of the claims on appeal. See 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) (“A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”).
The examiner finds (Answer at 3-6) that Martin teaches all of the requirements of
instant claim 1 except for a “plurality” of fabrication facilities. In the examiner’s opinion,
Martin and Burdick considered together would have suggested modifying the Martin
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007