Appeal No. 1997-1491
Application No. 08/478,167
36 (paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of brief). Again,
although appellants point out that the references do not teach
the claimed features, appellants have not presented
substantive arguments why the claimed features would have been
unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, from the
Grouping of Claims set forth at page 5 of the brief, it can be
seen that appellants have not separately grouped claims 19, 20
and 21-23. In any event, for the reasons given by the
examiner, we find that the claimed features would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
state of the prior art of record.
Concerning the new ground of rejection of claim 18 under
§ 103 over Sens in view of Saborsky, we agree with the
examiner's
reasoning at pages 5 and 6 of the answer that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the
art in view of the collective teachings of the applied
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007