Appeal No. 95-4959
Application 08/145,722
Although claim 2 was rejected on different prior art than claim 1, appellants rely on the
patentability of claim 1 as the sole basis to overturn the examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Since we were
not persuaded by appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1, we also are not persuaded by this
argument with respect to claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Capasso in view of Potter. The examiner has again established a prima facie case of the
obviousness of these claims [answer, pages 6-7]. Appellants again rely on the patentability of claim 1
as the only basis to overturn the examiner’s rejection of these claims. Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 2, appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error in the
examiner’s position. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, we have sustained each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on prior art, but
we have not sustained the rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-11 is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007