Appeal No. 2006-1479
Application No. 10/324,660
1 We also sustain the rejections of claims 6, 9, 17, and 20 as being
2 unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Iwai, McPhail and Pavloski, and claims
3 5 and 15 as being unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Iwai, McPhail and
4 Kikuchi since Appellants have not challenged these rejections with any
5 reasonable specificity apart from the rejection of claim 11 (see In re Nielson,
6 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
7
8 SUMMARY
9 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-11, and 13-21 is
10 AFFIRMED.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013