Appeal No. 2006-1002
Application No. 09/945,892
(b) claims 39 and 55 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Arbab,
(c) claims 39 and 55 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Hartig,
(d) claim 50 over the stated combination of references
further in view of Yudenfriend,
(e) claims 29-39, 41-44, 51-57, 59, 62-64, 67 and 68
over Boire in view of Arbab, Zagdoun and Baratuci, and,
(f) claim 50 over the references cited in (e) above
further in view of Yudenfriend.
Appellants have not submitted separate substantive arguments
for the various groups of claims separately rejected by the
examiner, but rely upon arguments made for claim 29.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 29.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner’s reasoning
as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007