Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
Claim 16 over each of the above noted references and
further in view of Ivanov.
We refer to the several briefs and answers of record for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the appealed claims
have been separately grouped and argued in the manner
indicated on page 3 of the principal Brief, and we will
appropriately consider the separately grouped and argued
claims in our opinion below.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain only the §
103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Heuer, and concomitantly we will not sustain
any of the other § 103 rejections before us on this appeal.
Concerning the rejection based on the Heuer reference, we
discern nothing in the apparatus defined by appealed claim 1
which distinguishes over the apparatus disclosed in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007