Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
We AFFIRM.
The Examiner has finally rejected
• Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as
the invention;
• Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carney;
• Claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Carney in view of Barr; and,
• Claims 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Carney in view of Papka.
The Brief1 separately addresses three of the four grounds of
rejections2 and treats the claims as a group with respect to each rejection
addressed. Pursuant to the rules, the Board selects representative claims 1,
3, 8, 10, 15, and 19 to decide the appeal with respect to each ground of
rejection addressed. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims. Claims 3 and 15, and 10
and 19 depend ultimately on claims 1 and 8, respectively. They read as
follows:
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
27 April 2006), the Examiner's Answer (“Answer,” mailed 17 July 2006)
and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed 11 September 2006).
2 One ground of rejection is not addressed. See the decision, section IV.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013