Appeal No. 2002-0416
Application 08/902,625
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Thorman et al. (Thorman) 3,056,501 Oct. 2, 1962
Rogers 3,397,518 Aug. 20, 1968
Fujii et al. (Fujii) JP 56-456431 Oct. 28, 1981
Knecht DE 38224431 Mar. 23, 1989
Claims 33, 34, 35, and 37 stand rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Rodgers.
Claims 30, 31, 32, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Thorman.
Claims 33, 34, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Rodgers.
Claims 30, 31, 32, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knecht in view of Thorman.
Claims 33, 34, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Knecht in view of Rodgers.
Claims 30, 31, 32, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers in view of Thorman.
On page 5 of the brief, appellants group the claims into two
groupings. Appellants group claims 30, 31, 32, and 36 together
and group claims 33, 34, 35, and 37 together. On page 10 of the
brief, appellants state that throughout the final rejection the
examiner uses different references to reject different groups of
claims. Appellants therefore argue that the final rejection
itself establishes separate patentability for the grouping of
claims. On pages 1-2 of the reply brief, appellants also argue
1 The foreign references listed each have an English language translation
provided by the USPTO Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC)
Library. We use these translations in this decision for these foreign
references.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007