Appeal 2007-2537
Application 11/170,468
1 Group V (claim 22)
2 Applicants’ sole argument with respect to claim 22 is that “the
3 features are not disclosed or suggested in the art of record.” The statement
4 alone is not sufficient to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s specific
5 findings. The references already discussed are facially consistent with the
6 Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
7 claim 22.
8 E. Decision
9 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
10 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-18 and 21-23 stand
11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Connor in
12 view of Laske, the admitted prior art, Weibe and Ko is affirmed.
13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
14 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
smt
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013