Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 20
Application No. 10/225,395
Saruwatari (JP 54-037181) or Smyers, the claims are not
separately argued. Thus, we select claim 34 as the
representative claim, on which we decide this appeal as to this
rejection. Appellants do not contest the examiner’s rejection of
these claims based on the additional features presented in
representative claim 34. Rather, appellants rely on their
arguments presented against the rejection of independent claim 29
over Urban in view of Valaitis and Yokono. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated above, we shall also affirm the examiner’s
separate § 103(a) rejection of claims 10, 34, 36 and 38-42 over
Urban in view of Valaitis, Yokono, and Saruwatari (JP 54-037181)
or Smyers.
Concerning the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 11,
13 and 28 over Urban in view of Valaitis and Kwei, appellants do
not argue the claims separately. Thus, we select claim 28 as the
representative claim, on which we decide this appeal as to this
rejection. Appellants do not contest the examiner’s rejection of
these claims based on the additional features presented in
representative claim 28. Rather, appellants seemingly rely on
their arguments presented against the rejection of independent
claim 27 over Urban in view of Valaitis for the patentability of
these claims. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above in
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007