Appeal No. 2003-1208
Application 09/590,805
OPINION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 22-25 over Kalnitsky
in view of the appellants’ admitted prior art is affirmed as to
claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, procedurally reversed as to claim 6, and
reversed as to claims 22-25. The rejection of claim 3 over
Kalnitsky in view of the appellants’ admitted prior art and
Tursky is reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 22-25
over Murdock in view of the appellants’ admitted prior art, and
the rejection of claim 3 over Murdock in view of the appellants’
admitted prior art and Tursky, are reversed. Under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter new grounds of rejection
of claim 6.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in the
following groups: 1) claims 1 and 2; 2) claim 3; 3) claims 4
and 5; 4) claims 6 and 7; 5) claims 22 and 25; 6) claims 23
and 24 (brief, pages 4-5). We therefore limit our discussion of
the affirmed rejections to one claim in each relevant group,
i.e., claims 1, 5 and 7. 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 the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 22, and
dependent claims 3 and 6.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007