Appeal 2006-1127
Application 10/712,970
based upon appellant's contentions hereinabove
regarding the rejections under section 102 of
claims 1, 19 and 27, Norman does not contain all
of the limitations of any of the rejected claims and
the examiner does not contend that the limitations,
absent from Norman, are found in other cited
references.
. . . Norman alone and in all of the cited
combinations fail to meet this requirement.
Thus, the examiner has not met his burden of
making a proper rejection [Reply Br. 11].
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ general argument that the cited
combinations fail to include all of the limitations of the rejected claims
because the argument fails to particularly refute the Examiner’s respective
conclusions of obviousness pertaining to each of claims 10, 13, and 18.
Appellants have provided no specific analysis in support of their argument
that distinguishes each rejected claim from the respective combination of
teachings applied against it. Thus, we are constrained to agree with the
Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness regarding claims 10, 13 and 18 for
the reasons advanced by the Examiner (Answer 14-15).
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 13,
and 18 over Norman.
As indicated above, claim 26 depends from claim 19, the rejection of
which has not been sustained. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 26 for the reasons presented above.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007