Appeal No. 2006-3351
Application No. 10/011,882
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 7 and 8 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of Johansson, Akram and Shibuya is proper?
Appellants present no new arguments traversing the
rejection of claims 7 and 8, but rather indicate that
these claims are dependent directly or indirectly on
claim 1, which is traversed in the first section.
Since we affirm the rejection of claim 1 for reasons
indicated supra, the rejection of claims 7 and 8 is
likewise affirmed.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Other Issues
In the Examiner’s Answer, on page 6, middle,
and at the top of page 7, Examiner used the word
“tolerance” instead of the word “depth” of the
trenches. Appellants’ comments on that misstatement on
pages 5 and 6 of the Reply Brief are noted, but do not
affect the conclusions concerning the issues.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013