Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
rotation desired. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 8 and 17.
We now consider the rejection of claims 19-30 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Chu, Vassiliadis and
Pfeiffer. Although appellants nominally indicated that these
claims were grouped with claim 10, this rejection includes the
additionally applied Pfeiffer reference so that the nominal
grouping is technically not applicable. The only argument
offered by appellants for the patentability of these claims is
that they incorporate the limitations of claim 10 by
dependence. Since we have previously determined that the
rejection of claim 10 would be sustained, and since appellants
have offered no compelling reason for the patentability of
claims 19-30, we also sustain the Section 103 rejection of
these claims.
In summary, the provisional double patenting rejection
of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not sustained. The
rejection of claims 1-33 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is also not sustained. The rejection of claims
1, 7-10 and 16-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007