Appeal No. 97-4048
Application 08/371,934
v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir.
1983). As explained supra, in the present case, all the
limitations of appellants’ claims 18 and 19 are found
respectively in MacDonald and Rummer, and thus claims 18 and
19 are clearly anticipated thereby.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that appellants’
arguments for patentability have not been persuasive of error
on the examiner’s part. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection
of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on MacDonald is
sustained, as is the examiner’s rejection of claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Rummer. Given the grouping of claims
herein, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), and as noted above,
claims 20 through 22 are considered to fall with claim 19. It
also follows from the above determinations that the examiner’s
alternative rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on Rummer is likewise sustained.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007