Appeal No. 1999-1810
Application 08/288,433
form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a
previous claim; claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Bissot; claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Keating in view of Filippone; and claims
1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bissot in view of Keating and Filippone and over Keating in
view of Bissot and Filippone.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, and affirm the other rejections.
The appellant indicates that the claims stand or fall
together as to each rejection (brief, page 4). We therefore
limit our discussion of each affirmed rejection to one claim,
i.e., claim 16 for the rejections over Bissot and claim 1 for
the rejections over Keating in view of Filippone and over the
combined teachings of Bissot, Keating and Filippone.
Rejection of claims 18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 which depends from
independent claim 1. The examiner’s rationale for rejecting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007