Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 3
Application No. 08/472,321
3. Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Orford
in view of Dubach, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Suarez.
4. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swann in view of Dubach.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 11) and reply brief (Paper No. 14) and the
answer (Paper No. 12) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
According to the appellant's brief (page 4), claims 5-10, 12-16, 50 and 51 stand or fall
together and claims 11 and 49 are each separately patentable. Therefore, we have selected
independent claim 5 as the representative claim from the appellant's grouping of claims 5-10,
12-16, 50 and 51 to decide the appeal of these rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d
638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007