Appeal No. 96-0463
Application 08/069,161
claimed, the claims on appeal do not distinguish over the
teachings in Person even within 35 U.S.C. § 102 since the reader
is placed in possession of the claimed invention given due
consideration to analogousness of the terminology in Person to
that which is claimed in the proper context.
Since appellants' briefs do not present arguments
distinguishing between any claim 5, 7, 13 and 15 on appeal,
all claims fall together.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 5, 7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Lee E. Barrett ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Michael R. Fleming )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007