Appeal No. 2006-0551 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/182,904
appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity6 (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 is
AFFIRMED.
6 As set forth in 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), "[a] statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007