Appeal No. 2006-0600 8
Application No. 10/163,249
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since no separate
argument has been made by appellant regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
and 9, we consider that those claims will fall with claim 1, from
which they depend. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims
2 through 4, 6, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is likewise
sustained.
Appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief concerning
the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 through 15, 17, 18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dawda in view
of Cummings, and the rejection of claims 25 through 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McLaughlin in view of
Dawda and Cummings are essentially the same as those already
addressed above concerning claim 1. In each instance appellant
urges that “the above discussion regarding the... [applied
references] and the impermissibility of combining these references
applies here also” (brief, pages 16-17). For the reasons already
set forth in our discussion of claim 1, we again find those
arguments to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 through 15, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007