Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
and Sumser as it relates to independent claim 11 (from which claims 14 and 20
depend), this argument by Appellants fails. Appellants again make an unsupported
assertion that one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine
Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti (Reply Br. 6). For the same reasons provided supra,
we find this bald assertion of lack of motivation to combine unpersuasive.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 1 and 4-7 as anticipated by Bailey,
and in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10-13 and 15 as
unpatentable over Bailey and Sumser and of claims 14 and 20 as unpatentable over
Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti.
We conclude that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 16-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bailey.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bailey, of claims 10-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bailey and Sumser, and of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti are sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bailey is not sustained.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013