Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
Appellant argues that the dependent claims 20-22 are patentable over
the prior art of record because these claims each include features of the
independent claim 15 from which they depend [brief, page 9]. Accordingly,
because we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
15, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejections of these dependent claims
for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 15.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-25 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)(1)(iv).
29
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007