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