Appeal No. 2005-2711
Application No. 10/028,015
explanation of the prior art teachings and the claimed elements,
we agree with the Examiner that Ueda prima facie anticipates the
claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 and dependent claim
2. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and
2 is sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 9,
we note that Appellants merely rely on the arguments made with
respect to base claim 1. Therefore, we find the subject matter
of claim 9 to be obvious over the teachings of Guzuk for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.
Thus, we find that the examiner has established a reasonable case
of prima facie obviousness and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of the claim 9 over Guzuk.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007