Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
respect to independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Yao
in view of Fielder (see Issues 1 and 2).
C. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claims 10 and 11 (see Br. 9). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Abe for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder (see Issues 1
and 2).
D. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claims 12 and 13 (see Br. 10). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Lehmann for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim
1 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder (see Issues
1 and 2).
E. We note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent
claim 14 (see Br. 10). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of Lehmann and
Morioka for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013