Appeal No. 2006-2338 Page 7
Application No. 10/326,449
the patentability of claim 6. Rather, the appellant relied on the arguments for
patentability of claims 1, 4, and 5. Brief, p. 10. Finding no separate basis for
patentability of this dependent claim, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 4-6 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007