Appeal 2007-2235
Application 10/138,617
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Hudgins, Kneer, Apel, and Breckenridge (id. at 8-9).
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Hudgins, Kneer, Apel, and Hater (id. at 9-10).
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Hudgins, Kneer, Apel, and Poulsen (id. at 10).
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Hudgins, Kneer, Apel, and Bonnin (id. at 11).
Appellant states that these obviousness rejections “are not contested
herein in favor of allowing dependent claims 4, 6, 11-13, 15-17, and 23 to
stand or fall with independent claim 1, from which they depend, and
allowing dependent claims 8-10 to stand or fall with independent claim 7,
from which they depend” (Br. 5). Because we see no error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 6, 8-13, 15-17, and 23, we
affirm the rejections of those claims.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013