Appeal 2007-1101
Application 10/248,535
first stated rejection. To this combination of references, the Examiner first
adds Proett as to claims 17 through 19, then adds Brieger as to claim 21, and
lastly, separately adds Georgi as to claim 22.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as
exemplified here, we sustain each of the four separately stated rejections of
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents arguments only as to independent claims 1, 12, and
30 within the first stated rejection and presents no arguments as to any
dependent claim from any of them rejected within this first stated rejection.
Likewise, Appellant presents no arguments as to the second through fourth
stated rejections. Where the Examiner relies upon additional prior art in the
second through fourth stated rejections, Appellant presents arguments
consistent with and relying upon the arguments presented as to respective
parent independent claims 1, 12, and 30 in the first stated rejection. Only a
general argument that the additional prior art to Brieger and Georgi
respectively teach away from Appellant’s claimed invention is made without
any development of this position. We therefore agree with the Examiner’s
observations with respect to these rejections beginning at page 11 of the
Answer where the Examiner notes again that the newly added prior art to
Proett, Brieger, and Georgi do teach the features recited in the claims
rejected. These observations are not contested in the Reply Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013