Appeal No. 2006-1095 Page 15
Application No. 10/280,188
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Dietz for
essentially the same reasons argued by the examiner. We note that
appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 12-15 and 18-20, 22 and
23. Therefore, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims
as being anticipated by Dietz for the same reasons set forth in the rejection.
III. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3 and 26 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski [answer, pages 7-9 ]. We
note that appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of these dependent claims. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Boiarski for the same reasons set forth in the rejection.
IV. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski in view of Fardad [answer, page
10]. We note that appellants have not presented any substantive arguments
directed separately to the patentability of dependent claim 6. Therefore, we
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007