Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 The Appellants also argue that the teachings of Rigney are not
2 relevant to the subject matter of claim 32. Therefore, the Appellants request
3 that the rejection of claim 32 based on the combination of Rigney, Spence,
4 and Hasz be withdrawn. Br. 16.
5 It is not necessary to decide whether the rejection of claim 32 based
6 on the combination of Rigney, Spence, and Hasz should be withdrawn
7 because the combined teachings of at least Spence and Hasz render obvious
8 the subject matter of claim 32.
9 F. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
11 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17-25, 27-30, 32-35, and 37 under
12 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Spence
13 and Hasz.
14 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
15 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
16 being unpatentable over the combination of Spence, Hasz, and Ceramics and
17 Glasses.
18 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the
19 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
20 being unpatentable over the combination of Rigney, Spence, and Hasz.
21 G. DECISION
22 The rejection of claims 17-25, 27-30, 32-35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
23 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Spence and Hasz is
24 affirmed.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013