Appeal No. 96-3465
Application No. 07/848,856
(2) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colombo in view of Young or Tumminia and
further in view of DeWoskin.
(3) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as lacking antecedent basis for the phrase “said gap.”
Grouping of claims
According to appellants, the claims are grouped as follows
for purposes of this appeal (Brief, p. 4):
(1) Claim 1 stands separately;
(2) Claim 2 stands separately;
(3) Claims 3 and 4 stand or fall together;
(4) Claim 15 stands separately;
(5) Claims 16 and 17 stand or fall together.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colombo in view of Young or Tumminia. We
reverse this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007