Appeal 2007-1809
Application 09/774,013
In conducting such an individual assessment, the fact that the same or
similar aspect of an applied reference happens to anticipate or render
obvious distinct limitations recited in different claims hardly precludes such
an interpretation. The Examiner merely interpreted each claim separately
giving each limitation its broadest reasonable interpretation and found that
the Stavely reference taught or suggested these limitations. We find no error
in this approach. Accordingly, the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness based on the collective teachings of Stavely and Yajima has not
been persuasively rebutted.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4, 5, 8, and 10. Likewise, we will sustain the rejection of claims 17
and 18 which fall with claim 4.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is
affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013