Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 15
Application No. 10/154,060
Appellant argues that dependent claims 16-18 are improperly rejected
for the same reasons that independent claim 13 is improperly rejected
[brief, page 11]. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 13.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-18 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).
AFFIRMED.
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
JS/sjc/eld
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007