Appeal No. 2006-1095 Page 16
Application No. 10/280,188
will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Boiarski in view of Fardad for the same reasons set
forth in the rejection.
V. Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski in view of Fardad, and further in
view of Izumi [answer, pages 10 and 11 ]. We note that appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the
patentability of these dependent claims. Therefore, we will also sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Boiarski in view of Fardad, and further in view of Izumi, for the
same reasons set forth in the rejection.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 6-
10, 12-15, 18-23, and 26 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007