Appeal 2007-1399
Application 10/013,123
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, and 18-20 over Jackson in view of
Shikaya and Bauer '604,
(b) claim 3 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Henschel, Jr.,
(c) claims 6 and 15 over the stated combination of references further
in view of Olsen,
(d) claims 7 and 17 over the stated combination of references further
in view of McKinlay, and
(e) claim 16 over the stated combination of references further in view
of Bauer '963.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as her cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly,
we will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.1
1 We note that Appellants have not presented separate arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Also, Appellants have not submitted separate
substantive arguments for the Examiner's separate § 103 rejections of claims
3, 6 and 15, 7 and 17, and 16. Appellants only state that Henschel, Jr.,
Olsen, McKinlay, and Bauer '963 do not remedy the asserted deficiency of
the rejection of claim 1over Jackson in view of Shikaya and Bauer '604.
Accordingly, we will limit our consideration to the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, with which all the appealed claims stand or fall together.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013