Appeal 2007-2742
Application 09/764,618
1 Independent Claim 30 and Dependent Claims 29 and 31
2 Appellants separately argue claims 29-31. Claim 30 is a broader form of claim
3 21 and claims 29 and 31 each add the limitation of lack of intervention in payment
4 to claims 28 and 30 respectively. All of these limitations were contended in claims
5 21 and our findings as to those contentions are the same as we made in claims 1
6 and 21, supra.
7 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
8 erred in rejecting claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
9 Bogosian and Hambrecht.
10
11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12 The Appellants have not sustained their burden of showing that the Examiner
13 erred in rejecting claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
14 prior art.
15 On this record, the Appellants are not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-
16 31.
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013