Appeal 2006-3022
Application 10/286,434
the Answer.1 The Examiner cited the Lunden reference for describing the
operation of a controller unit and other references for teaching various
aspects of the claimed invention. The addition of the teachings of Lunden
and the other references do not detract from the teachings of Jurrius
discussed above. Appellants’ statement “[c]laim 9 is believed to be
patentable by virtue of its dependence, for the reasons articulated above with
respect to the claim 1 which it depends” is not a substantive argument which
sets forth why the differences would have been nonobviousness to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103. We also note that
Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results.
Conclusion of Law
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
Decision
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Jurrius is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Jurrius in view of Lunden is affirmed.
1 The Examiner has included multiple § 103 rejections that all include
Jurrius alone or in combination with other references.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013