Appeal No. 2001-0159
Application 08/936,724
Shioda et al. (JP ‘849)2 6-79849 Mar. 22, 1994
(Japanese published unexamined patent application)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 1, 4, 6 and 15 over JP ‘849 in view of Sens, Sowinski and
optionally Sack, and claims 3, 9, 11 and 16 over these references
further in view of Gilman or Hall.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 3, 9 and 11, and reverse
the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 15 and 16.
The appellants state that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 stand
or fall together, as do claims 15 and 16. We therefore limit our
discussion of the affirmed rejection to one claim, i.e., claim 3.
See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129
n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997). As for the
reversed rejections, we need to address only claims 1 and 16.
Rejection of claim 1
The appellants do not argue that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
recited in claim 1. Instead, the appellants argue that they have
2
2 Citations herein to JP ‘849 are to the English translation
thereof which is of record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007