Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
and/or suggests all the features of representative claim 2. With respect to the
issue of motivation, we note that Appellants merely restate their previous
arguments that the base combination of Holm and AAPA is improper (see
Br. 37). We have fully addressed the issue of motivation to combine Holm
and AAPA supra.
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the
Examiner has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to dependent claim 2. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2 as being unpatentable over
Holm in view of AAPA, and further in view of Kennel.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to the remaining claims in this group on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6
and 16-18 as being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA, and further in
view of Kennel, for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 2.
Claims 3-5
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 as being
unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA, and further in view of Kennel
and Arndt. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
select dependent claim 3 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Arndt fails to cure the deficiencies of Holm,
AAPA, and Kennel (Br. 40-42). We find no deficiencies with Holm, AAPA,
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013