Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
claim 1, (2) claims 4 and 13 will stand or fall with
representative claim 4 and (3) claims 9, 10 and 17 will stand
or fall with representative claim 9. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7).
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and by
the examiner in the answer and supplemental answer. As a
consequence of this review, we will sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (1) claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14-16
and 18-20 based on the combined disclosures of McComb, Forrest
and Swanson and (2) claims 4 and 13 based on the combined
disclosures of McComb, Forrest, Swanson and Barbour. We will
not, however, sustain the rejections of claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, or claims 9, 10 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of McComb,
Forrest, Swanson and Turner.
Considering first the rejection of claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the examiner is of the opinion
that “said secondary elements” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
We will not support the examiner’s position. The purpose of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007