Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Section 103 rejections are well founded. However, we
only affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejections (1) and (2)
above for the factual findings and conclusions set forth in the
Answer and below. We affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejection
(3) above for reasons different from those proffered by the
examiner. Accordingly, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(2001), we
denominate our affirmance of this rejection as including a new
ground of rejection.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 39, 40,
49, 52, 54, 56 through 59 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Bradley, Shiraki
and Asao.1 The examiner finds (Answer, page 4), and the
1 For purposes of this rejection, the appellants have
grouped claims 39, 40, 49, 52, 54, 56 through 59 and 66 together.
See the Brief, page 7. Therefore, we decide the propriety of
this rejection based on claim 39 alone consistent with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2001). See also In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379,
1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“If the brief fails
to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001)], the
Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007