Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
identified them in the statement of the rejection. Therefore, we find that
Meron teaches the invention recited in independent claim 53 and
independent claim 76 which Appellants elected to group therewith and their
respective dependent claims 54-57, 71-79, and 81-86.
Obviousness
Appellants elected to rely upon the asserted deficiencies under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and that Turek and Rothchild do not remedy the deficiency
in Meron. Since we found no deficiency in Meron and Appellants have not
presented separate arguments for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
sustain the rejections of claims 3, 18, 70, and 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have reversed the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-
18, 20-23, and 58-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph; we have
sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 16, 17, 20-23, 53-69, 71-80, and
82-86 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and we have sustained the rejection of claims
3, 18, 70, and 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013