Appeal No. 2006-1359
Application No. 10/098,417
Group II, claims 2, 4, and 7
We next consider Group II consisting of dependent claims 2, 4, and 7. We note that
appellant presents these claims under a separate subheading, and argues that claims 2, 4, and
7 patentably distinguish over Pothapragada and Inohara for the same reasons as previously
argued with respect to independent claim 1 [emphasis added]. Accordingly, because we have
sustained the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in Group I, we will likewise sustain the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, and 7 for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 1.
Group III, claims 8-11
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 8-11 that stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Pothapragada in view of Inohara.
We note that Group III includes independent claims 8-11. Because independent claim 10 is
the broadest claim from Group III, we will select independent claim 10 as the representative
claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). We note that appellant
argues that claims 8-11 patentably distinguish over Pothapragada and Inohara for the same
reasons as previously argued with respect to independent claim 1 [emphasis added]. We
further note that representative independent claim 10 is broader than independent claim 1.
Accordingly, because we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 in
Group I, we will likewise sustain the examiner’s rejection of all independent claims 8-11 for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of all claims under appeal.
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007