Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 14
Application No. 09/810,943
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The appellants have grouped claims 36 to 40 as standing or falling together.1
Thereby, claims 37 to 40 fall with claim 36. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 37 to 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 41 to 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54 and 55
We sustain the rejection of claims 41 to 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54 and 55 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 36.
Claim 45
We sustain the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue (brief, pp. 17-18; reply brief, p. 6) that the applied prior art does
not teach or suggest that each of the sensors includes a support portion mounted to a
1 See page 7 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007