Appeal No. 2006-1054
Application No. 09/739,619
Appellants contend in the Brief that claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19-21 stand or
fall together and that claims 3, 12, and 18 stand or fall together. However, claims 4 and
5 depend from claim 3. Claims 13, 14, and 15 depend from claim 12. Claims 19
through 21 depend from claim 18. Since we are persuaded that claims 3, 12, and 18
have not been shown to be unpatentable over the combination of Hiroaki and Ota, and
the rejections applied against the depending claims do not remedy the basic deficiency
in the rejection applied against claims 3, 12, and 18, we cannot sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 3-5, 12-15, and 18-21.
We note that the rejection of claims 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable, nominally, over Hiroaki and Ota does not rely on Ota as to claims 6
through 9. Nor is Ota named in the rejection of claims 16 and 17, notwithstanding that
the claims depend from claim 9. Consistent with appellants’ grouping of the claims,
claims 2, 6-11, 16, and 17 fall with instant claim 1 because no error has been
demonstrated in their rejection.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007