Appeal No. 94-3000
Application 07/914,654
Steck 4,722,752 Feb. 2, 1988
(Filed June 16, 1986)
Kremer 4,828,751 May 9, 1989
(Filed Aug. 28, 1987)
Kurokawa et al (Kurokawa) 5,105,556 Apr. 21, 1992
(Filed Aug. 9, 1988)
Claims 17 through 23, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Steck, Kremer and Kurokawa.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
each of the arguments and comments advanced by appellants and
the examiner in support of their respective positions. This
review leads us to conclude that only the examiner's rejection
of process claims 17 through 20, 25 and 26 is well-founded.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection of process claims
17 through 20, 25 and 26, but reverse the rejection of
apparatus claims 21 through 23. Our reasons for these
determinations follow.
At the outset, we note appellants' argument that "each of
the claims [is] separately patentable over the prior art.."
See Brief, page 5. To the extent appellants have argued the
limitations of each claim separately consistent with 37 CFR
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007