Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
8. The rejection of claim 25 as
unpatentable over Béjot, Markuson and
Leyde.
Claim 25 depends from claim 4 and is rejected on the
same combination of references. Since we determined above
that the subject matter of claim 4 was not obvious in view of
the applied references, it follows that the subject matter of
claim 25 is also not suggested by the applied references.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25.
9. The rejection of claims 26 and 27
as unpatentable over Béjot, Markuson,
Lehrmann, Leyde and Garmong.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 6].
These claims depend respectively from claims 15 and 17 which
were previously discussed. Appellant relies on the
patentability of claims 15 and 17 to support the patentability
of these claims as well as on a broad general assertion that
the subject matter of these claims is not taught by the
references with no accompanying analysis [brief, page 29].
Neither of these contentions is sufficient to persuade us that
the examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 27.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007