Appeal No. 2002-1153
Application No. 09/063,720
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Dent 5,631,898 May 20, 1997
Cisneros et al (Cisneros) 5,774,829 Jun. 30, 1998
(filed Dec. 12, 1995)
Claims 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Cisneros.
Claims 8-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view of Cisneros.2
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15, mailed May
11, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 14, filed March 12,
2001) and the reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed June 11, 2001) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that the
claims stand or fall together in three groups: claims 8, 15 and
24 as one group, claims 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 as the second
group and claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23 and 25 as the
third group (brief, page 3). However, Appellants present
2 The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims 20-24 over Lewis (U.S.
Patent No. 5,796,365) is withdrawn by the Examiner (answer, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007