Appeal No. 2006-0631
Application No. 10/138,539
Appealed claims 1-4, 8-10 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payne in view of
Adam. Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Markusch. Claims 11-17, 21-26, 28 and 29
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the stated combination of references further in view of
Geotechnical. Also, claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payne in view of Adam,
Geotechnical and Markusch.
Appellants do not set forth separate substantive arguments
for the separate groups of claims rejected by the examiner.
Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall together and we will
limit our consideration to the examiner's § 103 rejection of
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007