Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
in the rejection of claim 11 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1, 7, and 16.
Claim 12 was argued on the same basis as claims 1 and 16 (Br. 22-23;
Reply Br. 14-15), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in
the rejection of claim 12 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1 and 16.
Claim 13 was argued on the same basis as claims 1, 7, and 16 (Br. 23-
24; Reply Br. 15-16), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error
in the rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1, 7, and 16.
Claim 14 was argued on the same basis as claims 1 and 16 (Br. 24-25;
Reply Br. 16-17), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in
the rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1 and 16.
Dependent claim 15 was not argued separately from independent
claim 14,5 and thus falls with claim 14.
We have considered Appellants' remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-15 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 1-16.
5 Although the Briefs include a point heading for claims 14 and 15, no
argument was presented with respect to claim 15. (Br. 24-25; Reply
Br. 16-17.)
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013