Appeal 2007-2490
Application 09/846,255
The Dependent Claims
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5-14 separately (Br. 7-9), the arguments presented merely
allege that the combination of Mehta and Verhaverbeke does not disclose the
limitations recited in the respective dependent claims. Apart from these
mere conclusory statements, Appellants provide no supporting analysis or
explanation as to why the cited prior art fails to disclose the recited
limitations. Merely pointing out what a claim recites is not considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). In any event, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness based on the collective
teachings of the references indicated on pages 4-6 of the Answer. The
Examiner’s rejection of these claims is therefore sustained.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-14
is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013