Appeal No. 2001-2509
Application No. 08/603,331
Appealed claims 24-28, 32, 38, 39 and 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Ballantyne. Claims
30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ballantyne. Claim 37 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantyne in view of
Tupper. In addition, claims 24, 25, 31 and 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Loos. Also, claims
24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Priore.
Appellant submits at page 6 of the principal brief that
claims 24, 26-28, 31, 32 and 39 stand or fall together, as do
claims 25 and 38. Also, appellant states that claims 30, 37 and
45 are to be considered independently.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However we are in substantial agreement with
the examiner’s application of the prior art and disposition of
the arguments raised by appellant. Accordingly, inasmuch as we
find that the examiner’s rejections are free of reversible error,
they will be sustained.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 24-28,
32, 38, 39 and 45 under § 102 over Ballantyne. The principal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007