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, wePage: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007