Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 9
Application No. 09/841,453
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2-16, 18-21 and 31-34 over Jin in view of
Grainger and Kotelnikov.
Concerning the examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 22-29 over the same combination of references, as applied
against claims 2-16, 18-21 and 31-34, we note that appellants do
not furnish separate arguments for each of the rejected claims.
Thus, we select claim 22 as the representative claim, on which we
shall decide this appeal as to this ground of rejection.
Appellants refer to their arguments against the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-16, 18-21 and 31-34 and summarize those
contentions in contesting the separate rejection of claims 22-29
at pages 8 and 9 of the brief. Because we do not find those
arguments persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the
answer, it follows that we will also affirm the examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 22-29 on this record.
Concerning the examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claim 17, the examiner additionally applies Burns thereto. Claim
been persuasively refuted by appellants on this record, we need
not reach the additional teachings of Kotelnikov. Also, we note
that appellants refer (reply brief, pages 1-4) to the Board
Decision in appeal No. 2003-1366. However, that Decision was
based on a different evidentiary record. Thus, we decline
appellants’ invitation to apply that Decision to this appeal.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007