Appeal No. 2006-0996
Application No. 10/162,516
considered the examiner’s rejection, and we find that the examiner has at least
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’ only argument
with respect to this rejection is that claims 10 and 11 are allowable because they
depend from allowable claim 1 [brief, page 7]. Since we have determined that the
rejection of claim 1 was appropriate, and since appellants have not otherwise rebutted
the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, we also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 11.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections with respect to each of the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 6, 8-11,
13, 27, 29, 38-41, 48 and 54 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007