Appeal No. 2007-0943 Page 9
Application No. 09/965,163
II. Claims 3-4, 16, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Moody in view of Brandstetter and Horniak (US 2003/0100362 A1)
The Appeal Brief does not separately address this rejection. Appellant
argues in support of the patentability of claims 3-4, 16, and 20-21 for the same
reasons used in support of the patentability of claims 1, 14, 18, and 27 (Appeal Br.
7). Accordingly, we do not separately address the rejection of claims 3-4, 16, and
20-21, but, rather, consider it to stand or fall with the disposition of the rejection of
claims 1, 14, 18, and 27. Since we have found that Appellant has failed to show
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 14, 18, and 27, we likewise find that
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-4, 16,
and 20-21.
III. Claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moody
in view of Brune, Brandstetter, and Erlichson (US 2001/0039513 A1)
Claim 37
The Appeal Brief does not separately address this rejection. Appellant
argues in support of the patentability of claim 37 for the same reasons used in
support of the patentability of claims 1, 14, 18, and 27 (Appeal Br. 7).
Accordingly, we do not separately address the rejection of claim 37, but, rather,
consider it to stand or fall with the disposition of the rejection of claims 1, 14, 18,
and 27. Since we have found that Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 14, 18, and 27, we likewise find that Appellant has
failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 37.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013