Appeal No. 94-4150
Application 07/911,354
of which applicant regards as the invention? (Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
Claims 2-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
being obvious over Haney or Margel.
Claims 2-9, 11 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
being obvious over Smith.
Finally, claims 17, 5, 8, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35
USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by or under 35 USC § 103 as
being obvious over Mitchell.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the appealed claims
will stand or fall together in accordance with their groupings in
the above noted rejections; see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (1993) and
page 2 of the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer.
OPINION
We will sustain the examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections of
claims 17, 5, 8, 23 and 24 over Mitchell, but we will not sustain
any of the other rejections advanced by the examiner on this
appeal.
THE SECTION 112 REJECTION
This rejection is not well founded for the reasons detailed
by the appellant on pages 3 through 5 of his Supplemental Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007