Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
Br. 10.
B. Analysis
Because Appellants stand on the arguments they used in rebutting the
rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 (FF 2) and because those
arguments were not found persuasive as to error in the rejection, the
rejection is affirmed for the same reasons we used affirm the rejection of
claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13.
III. Obviousness – Claims 15-22
The Examiner finally rejected claims 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Carney in view of Papka. Answer 6. The
Examiner indicates that Appellants’ statement of the grounds of rejection in
the Brief fails to indicate that claims 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Carney in view of Papka. Answer 2.
The Reply Brief does not correct the record. We find no evidence that
Appellants have responded to the rejection of claims 15-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Carney in view of Papka. Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown error in the rejection of claims 15-22 and the
rejection is thus affirmed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013