Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Benham, Endo and
Gallaro. We affirm each of these rejections.
For each of these rejections, Appellants state that the
additionally cited references, Evans and Gallaro, do not remedy
the deficiencies of Benham and Endo discussed previously.
Brief, pp. 10-11). Appellants have not challenged the
Examiner’s findings regarding the specific references or the
suitability of their being combined with the Benham and Endo
references. Since Appellants have not challenged the
Examiner’s motivation for combining the Evans and Gallaro
references with Benham and Endo, we presume that they are in
agreement with the Examiner that there is motivation to use the
teachings of these references together. Consequently for the
reasons stated above when discussing the rejection over the
Benham and Endo references and the reasons presented in the
Answer by the Examiner we affirm these rejections.
We now turn to the prior art rejections over the Libman
reference.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007