Appeal No. 2004-0185
Application No. 09/923,016
Appealed claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Sternberg. Claim 17 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sternberg in
view of Farren. Claim 9 also stands rejected under § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sternberg in view of Farren and Meshulam,
while claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sternberg in view of Brasington.
Appellant submits that the appealed claims "form a single
group from the standpoint of the invention" and, hence, "the
claims stand or fall together" (page 8 of Brief). Accordingly,
all the appealed claims stand or fall together with independent
claim 16. Also, although the dependent claims have been
separately rejected by the examiner under § 103, and "applicant
still needs to review the various basis presented by the examiner
for rejection" (page 11 of Brief, second paragraph), appellant
does not advance substantive arguments specific to the features
of the dependent claims. Appellant's arguments focus upon
asserted deficiencies of the Sternberg reference with respect to
the § 102 rejection of claim 16. Accordingly, we will limit our
discussion to the § 102 rejection of claim 16.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007