Appeal No. 2006-2572
Application No. 10/437,569
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants merely rely upon the arguments with
respect to independent claim 1 and have not set forth additional specific arguments.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive with respect to dependent claim 2, and we
will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants merely rely upon the arguments with
respect to independent claim 1 and have not set forth additional specific arguments.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive with respect to dependent claim 4.
Appellants reiterate the argument with respect to light signal loss which we did not find
persuasive with respect to independent claim 1 and Appellants have not identified any reason
why the additional teachings of Hayashi would support Appellants’ argument that Feng
teaches away from the combination. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007