Appeal 2007-2869
Application 10/286,535
Sakayanagi and McGaffigan.
Rejection of claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan,
and Bleske
Appellants argue claims 6 and 36-41 as a group (Appeal Br. 15-16). As
such, we select claim 36 as a representative claim, and the remaining claims 6 and
37-41 stand or fall with claim 36. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that Bleske fails to overcome the alleged deficiencies of
Sakayanagi and McGaffigan presented with respect to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15).
We find Appellants’ arguments with regard to independent claim 1 unpersuasive
for those reasons presented supra. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan, and Bleske.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-27, 42 and 43 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi and
McGaffigan, and claims 6 and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi,
McGaffigan, and Bleske.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7,
10-27, 42 and 43 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi and McGaffigan, and claims
6,and 36-41 as unpatentable over Sakayanagi, McGaffigan, and Bleske is
sustained.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013