Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the examiner’s rather
detailed consideration of the teachings of Fazel as applied to the claims on appeal, as
amplified and emphasized here, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal. The
first stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 includes independent claims 1, 17, 23 and
25. Only the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17 in this rejection are argued
in the brief. Moreover, the appellants rely upon the arguments as to representative
independent claim 1 on appeal to urge patentability for each of the separately recited
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Fazel only or additional prior art.
Appellants’ remarks as to the separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent
claim 24 at page 9 of the principal brief on appeal does not argue against the
combinability within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Chouly and does not contest or challenge
what the examiner says this reference teaches. Essentially, the same may be said of
the additional prior art relied on by the examiner in the other rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007