Appeal No. 2006-0626 8
Application No. 09/316,990
teachings of Giuliani, Michaels and Roberts would have furnished the artisan with ample
motivation or suggestion to combine them to produce an article which ostensibly is
structurally identical to that recited in claim 1 and fully capable of functioning and being
used in the manner set forth in the claim.
Hence, considered in light of the totality of evidence and argument before us, the
examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject matter recited in claim 1
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art is well
founded.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Giuliani in view of Michaels and
Roberts.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 2-5, 9 and 12-14 as being unpatentable over Giuliani in view of Michaels and
Roberts since the appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity,
thereby allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007