Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 3
Application No. 08/507,981
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under Orbach in view of IBM
and Itami, and further in view of Tamada.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed July 31, 1998) and the supplemental examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed October 28, 1999) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed May 14,
1998), reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 29, 1998),
and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed December 27,
1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
The appellants state (brief, page 6) that each of the
claims are considered to be separately patentable. From our
review of the briefs, we find that the appellants have only
presented arguments as to claims 1, 7, 9, and 10.
Accordingly, the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall
with the claims from which they depend.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007