Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
answer, viz., “so that there would be a step of marking a new
surface in response to a user command subsequent to the
programming of the instrument to obtain a record of currently
selected options” and “to gain the benefit of being able to
reproduce a record of currently selected options without manually
repeating the instrument programming operation continuously”
(referring to Watanabe, column 1, lines 6-15).
Accordingly, since the examiner has established a reason for
making the combination and appellant has not offered any argument
or evidence showing error in the examiner’s rationale, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-14 under obviousness-
type double patenting, we will summarily sustain this rejection
because the examiner has finally rejected the claims on this
ground and appellant offers no response to refute the rejection
or show any error in the examiner’s reasoning.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1-14 under
obviousness-type double patenting and we have sustained the
rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the
rejection of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007