Appeal No. 2005-2505
Application 09/740,277
depends. Additionally, this citation was with respect to the
feature found in claim 47 and the rejection of claim 47
specifically notes that claim 47 sets forth “the same limits as
claim 1.”
Appellants appear to argue that the section of French
specifically cited in the rejection of claim 47 should be viewed
in a vacuum without consideration of the sections of French cited
in the rejection of claim 1 (from which claim 47 depends). We
disagree.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 18-26, 33-39, and 42-46
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 18-26, 33-39, and
42-46. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claims 18 and 33, Appellants do
not present a separate argument. Therefore, these claims stand
or fall based on the arguments with respect to the claims from
which they depend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007