Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 Claims 115, 128, 160, and 173 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
2 Young, Ireland, Olmsted, and Swensen.
3 The Appellants do not separately argue these claims, and accordingly, these
4 claims fall with the claims rejected over Young and Ireland.
5
6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 The Examiner has shown that the combination of Young and Ireland describes
8 the limitations of claims 106 and 198, which are representative of claims 106, 109,
9 114, 135-140, 194-198, 200, and 204-205, and that one of ordinary skill would
10 have combined Young and Ireland to form the claimed subject matter.
11 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 106, 109, 114, 135-140,
12 194-198, 200, and 204-205 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young and
13 Ireland.
14 Since the Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claims 107, 116-118,
15 120, 122, 127, 149-152, 154, 159, 161-163, 165, 167, 172, 180-185, 199, and 201-
16 203 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young, Ireland, and Olmsted for the
17 same reasons as those rejected over Young and Ireland, these claims fall with the
18 claims rejected over Young and Ireland. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's
19 rejection of claims 107, 116-118, 120, 122, 127, 149-152, 154, 159, 161-163, 165,
20 167, 172, 180-185, 199, and 201-203 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
21 Young, Ireland, and Olmsted.
22 Since the Appellants do not separately argue the Examiner's rejection of claims
23 115, 128, 160, and 173 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Young, Ireland,
24 Olmsted, and Swensen, these claims fall with the claims rejected over Young and
25 Ireland. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 115, 128, 160,
23
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013