Appeal No. 96-0763 Page 5
Application No. 07/840,345
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9 through 11 and 14 through 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hatano in view of Yanagisawa further in view of EPA’412, and
further in view of EPA’218.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as the invention.
OPINION
As an initial matter appellants submit that the claims are
grouped in two groups separately patentable on their own
merits. Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, and 14 through 16 constitute the
first group. Claims 6 and 7 constitute the second group.
Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 6 respectively as
representative of each group of claims. See 37 CFR 1.192 §
(c)(5)(1994).
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007