Appeal No. 2006-0837
Application No. 10/081,446
With respect to claims 36-43, Appellant merely references the arguments made with
respect to claim 16. Therefore these claims stand or fall with claim 16, and we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 24-25, 34-35, and 44-45 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the invention as set forth in claims 24-25, 34-35, and 44-45. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claims 24-25, 34-35, and 44-45, Appellants argue at page 7 of
the brief, “Mueller fails to cure the deficiencies of Burrows and Ben-Natan.” We find this
unpersuasive as we have found no such deficiencies in the rejections based on Burrows and
Ben-Natan (see above discussion).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 16-45.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007