Appeal No. 97-1175 Page 10
Application No. 08/383,361
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 13 and 20
Claims 13 and 20 have not been separately argued by the
appellant. Accordingly, these claims will be treated as
falling with claim 12. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus,
it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims
13 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 14 and 16 to 19
The appellant argues (brief, p. 11) that the features
recited in claims 3, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are not shown in the
cited prior art.3
3Claims 18 and 19 are dependent on claim 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007