Appeal No. 2006-2314 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/856,225
§ 103(a) Rejection
Concerning the examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 7, 8, 12, 15, and 18, appellants argue these claims
together on the basis of the arguments made against the
examiner’s anticipation rejection without otherwise challenging
the examiner’s obviousness position as to any particular one of
rejected claims 7, 8, 12, 15, and 18. We select claim 7 as the
representative claim and we affirm for reasons set forth above
and in the answer.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9-11, 13,
14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Iversen; and to reject claims 7, 8, 12, 15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iversen is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007