Appeal 2007-0130
Application 10/688,584
1 claim 3 depends, requires that the plurality of microwave guides be in the
2 treatment section, Chauffoureaux discloses such.
3 Appellants’ arguments directed to whether one would be motivated to
4 modify the Gerling device are not persuasive because the Examiner does not
5 propose to modify the Gerling device. Rather, the Examiner reasons that
6 Chauffoureaux may be modified so has to have a tilted treatment section as
7 disclosed in Gerling.
8 In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
9 claim 3. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, and 9
10 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these
11 claims.
12 We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection as it is directed to
13 claims 4 and 8 because Gerling discloses that the treatment section is
14 modular.
15 The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
17 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
18
19 AFFIRMED
20
21 hh
22
23 Gene R. Woodle
24 3516 Woodle Dr.
25 Rapid City, SD 57702
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013