Formating Amendment...where to argue what?

[EDCGadgetGeek]

The subject of this post has always confused me.  This is my scenario.  I received 103 rejections based off 1 reference on some of my dependent claims, and I have strong arguments to overcome them, but I want to cancel these dependent claims, and add them as limitations to my independent claim 1, using them to overcome the 102 rejection of my independent claim 1.  So where, do I argue this...under a 103 heading or a 102 heading in my amendment/response?

[Tobmapsatonmi]

The subject of this post has always confused me.  This is my scenario.  I received 103 rejections based off 1 reference on some of my dependent claims, and I have strong arguments to over come them, but I want to cancel these dependent claims, and add them as limitations to my independent claim 1, using them to overcome the 102 rejection of my independent claim 1.  So where, do I argue this...under a 103 heading or a 102 heading in my amendment/response?

Rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §102 over Smith, et al.
In the Office Action claim 1 was rejected under 35 USC §102 as anticipated by Smith, et al.  Currently amended claim 1 is amended to contain the subject matter of original dependent claim 3 (now canceled), which formed no part of the rejection under 35 USC §102.  Therefore the Applicant respectfully submits this rejection is moot, and respectfully requests it be withdrawn.

Rejection of claim original claim 3 under 35 USC §103 in view of Doe, et al.
In the Office Action claim 3, which originally depended from claim 1, was rejected under 35 USC §103 as obvious over the disclosure of Doe, et al.  Currently amended independent claim 1 now contains the subject matter of original dependent claim 3 (canceled herewith) and therefore the obviousness rejection over Doe, et al. is relevant to currently amended independent claim 1.  This rejection is traversed because the Applicant wants to argue the Bejesus out of this rejection.