Appeal No. 2006-1760
Application No. 09/728,697
(e) claims 15, 16, 31 and 32 over Underwood in view of
Osborn, Leseman and Kim, and
(f) claims 49 and 50 over Underwood in view of Osborn,
Leseman and Zurawski.
Appellants do not present an argument that is reasonably
specific to any particular claim on appeal, and appellants’
arguments only address the rejections of the independent claims
over Riddell in view of Osborn, and Underwood in view of Osborn
and Leseman. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together and we will consider only the examiner’s separate
rejections of independent claims 1, 17 and 18 over Riddell in
view of Osborn, and over Underwood in view of Osborn and Leseman
(see page 4 of the principal brief for the section entitled
GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However we are in complete agreement with the
examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as
well as his cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments
raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner’s
reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and
we add the following for emphasis only.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007