Appeal No. 96-1902
Application No. 08/156,679
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Weerda in view of Baum '896 and
McGrail.
Claims 13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Weerda in view of Baum '896, Brown
and Baum '530.2
The rejections are explained on pages 2-4 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 33). The arguments of the appellants and
examiner in support of their respective positions may be found
on pages 2-11 of the brief, pages 1-3 of the reply brief,
pages 5 and 6 of the answer, and page 2 of the supplemental
answer.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that on page 3 of the brief the
appellants state that the rejected claims stand or fall
together. Accordingly, dependent claims 12, 13, 15 and 16
will stand or fall with independent claim 11. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
2It would appear that the examiner also intended to
include McGrail.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007