Appeal 2007-1275
Application 09/824,248
respect to claim 9, we find that the Examiner properly found each of the
claimed limitations to be present in the prior art.
The issue of non-functional descriptive material was not raised by the
Appellant or the Examiner, and is not necessary for a resolution of the issue
in this appeal. However, we note that several limitations of claim 15 are
highly suggestive of that doctrine of law.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant argues that claims 10, 12, 14, and 16 are separately
patentable because neither Anderson nor Shioji teach the respective
limitations of these claims. (Br. 11, 13-14.) However, the Examiner found
that Shioji teaches the limitations of claims 10, 14, and 16, and took Official
Notice that the limitation of claim 12 was well known in the art. (Answer 5-
6, 8.) Appellant has provided no explanation of why the Examiner's findings
are in error, nor has Appellant pointed to any evidence to indicate that the
Examiner's findings were incorrect. Therefore, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 12, 14, and 16.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 10, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9, 10, and 12-16.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013