Appeal 2007-1868
Application 10/441,682
but potentially between the crystals and the grid walls.” Thus, Appellants admit
that there is an air gap between the crystals and the grid walls. As the grid walls
are between the crystals, any air gap between the crystals and the grid walls is also
an air gap between the crystals. As discussed above, any air gap between the
crystals meets the limitations of claim 1.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Appellants have
not presented arguments directed to the separate patentability of claims 2 through
18, therefore in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (vii) we group claims 2
through 18 with independent claim 1 and similarly affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013