Appeal 2007-2355
Application 10/006,952
In response, we find no deficiencies with the Examiner’s proffered
combination of Bork and Hendrey, as discussed supra. Thus, Appellant has
not presented any substantive arguments directed to the separate
patentability of dependent claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 31. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 31 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Bork in view of Hendrey, and further in
view of Kikinis for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 24, respectively. See In re Young, 927
F.2d at 590. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005).
DECISION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-6 and 8-31 is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013