Appeal No. 96-4005
Application 08/183,531
dependent on a canceled claim. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Feuerstein and the admitted prior art. Rather than reiterate the arguments of
Appellant and the Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
Examiner, the arguments in support of the rejections, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the obviousness rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant's arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that dependent claim 4 does not
comply with the third paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claim 1. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 2, 4, and 5. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has nominally indicated that the claims stand or fall together in a single group (Brief,
page 2). Consistent with this indication, Appellant, in presenting several arguments, has
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007