Appeal 2006-2711
Application 10/662,935
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 16 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of
Warren, claims 6 and 14 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren and
Smith, claim 3 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren and
Wellington, claim 4 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren and
Campbell, claim 5 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of Warren and
Judell, and claims 9, 10, and 12 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of
Warren, Judell, and Smith. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (Answer 3).
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed March 30, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments
in the Brief (filed January 25, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed May 5, 2006).
OPINION
Appellant argues that the combination of Warren with Thulin, on
which all of the Examiner’s rejections are grounded, at least in part, is
improper. Specifically, Appellant argues that Warren is so unrelated to the
Thulin environment as to be non-analogous. Further, Appellant contends
that, since there is no benefit or function described for the Warren structure,
there is no suggestion to combine them (Br. 4).
Appellant does not argue claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 16 separately from
one another. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we
select claim 13 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 16 as unpatentable over Thulin in view of
Warren, with claims 1, 2, 8, and 16 standing or falling with claim 13.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013