Appeal No. 2006-1908 Page 6
Application No. 10/371,161
after being delivered thereto by the weigher. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
The appellant did not separately argue the patentability of the remaining
rejected dependent claims 2, 3, and 9-11. Rather, the appellant relied on his
arguments for patentability of claim 1. Finding no separate basis for patentability
of these dependent claims, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 9-11 is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007