Appeal No. 2006-1649
Application No. 10/212,191
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1, 10, and 17 based on the combination of Bengtsson and Sandstrom, and
claims 1, 8, 12, 14, and 15 based on the combination of Bengtsson and Lawrence, we
sustain these rejections as well. Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs are limited to a
reiteration of their arguments made with respect to the alleged deficiencies of
Bengtsson in disclosing the claimed control point adjustment feature, which arguments
we found to be unpersuasive for all of the reasons discussed supra.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4
and 6-17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective September 13, 2004).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007