Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Aziz.
2. Claims 2, 7, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hung.
3. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hung, as applied to independent claim 17, in view of
Nakaya.
4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hung in view of Chen.
We note that only the features of sole independent claim 17 have been
argued in the Brief with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
over Aziz and under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Hung alone. None of the
dependent claims in these rejections has been separately argued in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 13, 2004). As a
consequence, in our disposition of these rejections, we select claim 17 as
representative of the rejected claims. For the anticipatory rejection over
Aziz, claims 7, 8, 13, 15, and 20-22 will stand or fall with claim 17. For the
obviousness rejection over Hung alone, claims 2, 7, 13, 15, and 20-22 will
stand or fall with claim 17. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). With respect to the § 103(a) rejection based
on Hung and Nakaya, we select claim 18 as representative of the rejected
claims since Appellants do not specifically argue patentability of the
limitations of the rejected claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013