Appeal No. 96-2810
Application 08/017,086
Introduction
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable in view of the combined prior art
teachings of Norris, U.S. Patent 5,238,881, patented Aug. 24,
1993 (prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on a filing
date of Nov. 9, 1988), and Lo, U.S. Patent 4,845,175, patented
July 4, 1989,
and U.S. Patent Reexamination Certificate B1 4,845,175, issued
July 30, 1991. Claim 9 stands finally rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as described by Norris. Absent the requisite
statement in their Amended Brief For Appellants “that the
claims of the group do not stand or fall together” (37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7)
(March 17, 1995)), Claims 1-4 and 6-8 will stand or fall2
together as stated in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans., p. 2).
However, since the rejection of Claim 9 has a different
2 The examiner incorrectly directs our attention to
37 CFR § 1.162(c)(5)(nonexistent).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007