Appeal No. 98-0003
Application No. 08/601,896
(b) claim 15 as being unpatentable over Ouwerkerk in view
of Karakane, and further in view of Einhaus.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed June 30, 1997).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 17, filed May 7, 1997).
The § 103 rejection based on Ouwerkerk and Karakane
(rejection (a))
At the outset, we note that appellant states on page 5 of
the brief that claims 1-4, 6-12 and 17 stand or fall together.
We therefore select claim 1 as representative of this group of
claims, and decide the appeal of these claims based on that
claim alone. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
The examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection of
claim 1, as set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the brief, is not a
model of clarity. However, to the extent understood, we
cannot support that rationale. Nevertheless, for reasons
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007