Ex Parte Spencer et al - Page 14


              Appeal No. 2006-2011                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/996,720                                                                               


              18].  The examiner responds with arguments that we have considered above [answer,                        
              pages 38-39].                                                                                            
              We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims based on Bruce taken                        
              alone.  Since these claims depend from independent claim 23, and since the rejection of                  
              independent claim 23 on Bruce has not been sustained , then the rejection of these                       
              dependent claims is also unsupported by the evidence.                                                    
              With respect to the rejection of claim 18 based on Shimizu or Bruce in view of                           
              Bueno and the rejection of claim 27 based on Shimizu or Bruce in view of No, the                         
              examiner has presented findings in support of obviousness [answer, pages 23-25].                         
              Appellants argue that Bueno and No fail to overcome the deficiencies of Shimizu or                       
              Bruce [brief, pages 18-19].                                                                              
              We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of either of these claims.  Since these                     
              claims depend from claim 17 or claim 23, and since the rejection of claims 17 and 23                     
              has not been sustained for reasons discussed above, the rejection of these dependent                     
              claims is also unsupported by the evidence in this case for reasons discussed above.                     
              In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 14                          
              based on Bruce, but we have not sustained any of the examiner’s other rejections of the                  
              claims on appeal.  Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-               
              14, 16-18, 20-27, and 30-33 is affirmed-in-part.                                                         
              No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may                       
              be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).                                                              


                                                          14                                                           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007