Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/245,442
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error in the examiner’s obviousness
determinations as set forth in the answer. We adopt the
examiner’s factual findings set forth in the answer and
substantially agree with the examiner’s reasoning and rebuttal of
arguments as set forth in the answer. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for substantially the reasons set forth in the answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
In traversing the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims
13, 15, 29, and 31 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of
Ameen and Mandrekar, appellants’ main arguments focus on an
alleged lack of suggestion or motivation for the examiner’s
proposed reference combination. Appellants essentially argue
claims 13, 15, 29, and 31 as a group in so doing. Thus, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007