Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
same arguments stated above with respect to claim 1 and adds that
no further suggestion is found in Verboom to cure the
deficiencies of Kudora (brief, page 9). Again, weighing the
opposing arguments, we find ourselves unpersuaded by Appellant’s
position that the combination is flawed because the features of
the base claim is missing from Kudora. For essentially the same
reasons outlined above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4-8, 18, 21, 24 and 25 over
Kuroda and Verboom.
CONCLUSION
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 and
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claims 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 15,
18, 21, 24, 25 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007