Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
Ooyama and Hoffman. Rather, Appellant asserts that the subject matter of
claims 16-17 is patentable for the reasons advanced with respect to claim 10.
The Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the suitability
of adding the teachings of Yoshio with Ooyama and Hoffman. (See Final
Rejection 12-13). Thus, for the reasons presented above regarding claim 10
and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold the rejection of
claims 16-17.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung. Appellant has not specifically challenged the
Examiner's motivation for combining the teachings of Chung with Ooyama
and Hoffman. Rather, Appellant asserts that the subject matter of claim 27
is patentable for the reasons advanced with respect to claims 10 and 29 (Br.
17). The Examiner has presented factual determinations regarding the
suitability of adding the teachings Chung with Ooyama and Hoffman. (See
Final Rejection 13-14). Thus, for the reasons presented above regarding
claims 10 and 29 and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold
the rejection of claim 27.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first
paragraph is reversed. The prior art rejections of claims 10-11, 13-18, 20-
25, 27, and 29-33 are affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007