Appeal No. 96-1313
Application 08/202,536
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan.4
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with the
examiner that appellants’ claimed invention would have been
obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention
over the applied reference. Accordingly, we sustain the
aforementioned rejection. Because our reasoning differs
substantially from that of the examiner, we denominate the
affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 6). We therefore limit our discussion to one
claim, namely, claim 10. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
4Claims 25-27 were not included in the final rejection.
Because these claims have been addressed in both appellants’
brief (page 6) and the examiner’s answer (page 3), we consider
the rejection of these claims to be before us for
consideration.
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007