Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
and Kennel, as discussed supra. 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. 41). We have fully
addressed the issue of motivation to combine Holm with 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 3. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3 as being unpatentable over
Holm in view of AAPA, and further in view of Kennel and Arndt.
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 4
and 5 as being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA, and further in
view of Kennel and Arndt for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to representative claim 3.
Claims 11-13
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-13 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kennel. Since Appellants’ arguments
with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group
which stand or fall together, we will consider dependent claim 11 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). We further note that Appellants have not presented
any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of
dependent claims 11-13 (see Br. 42-43). In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand or fall
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013