Appeal 2007-2005
Application 10/066,110
1 find that the Examiner has shown that Yoshida discloses each step of the claim and
2 its limitations and articulated an apparent reason with some rational underpinning
3 to arrive at the claimed invention from Yoshida. Appellant argues the significance
4 of a “separation” element alleged to be set forth in the preamble of the claims.
5 However, taking claim 23 as representative, no such preamble or “separation”
6 element is recited. Appellant has therefore not shown that the Examiner’s
7 reasoning is flawed. Since Appellant has moreover shown no secondary factors to
8 dislodge a determination that the claimed subject matter is obvious, we affirm the
9 rejection.
10
11 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, and 31
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoshida.
13
14 Claim 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoshida and Perkins.
15 The Appellant raises no contention regarding this claim, and thus it stands or
16 falls with its parent claim 23. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
17 claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoshida and Perkins.
18
19 Claims 19, 20, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoshida
20 and Rosenberg.
21 The Appellant raises no contention regarding these claims, and thus they stand
22 or fall with their parent claims 15 and 23. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's
23 rejection of claims 19, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
24 Yoshida and Rosenberg.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013