Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
claim 5 is also obvious over the teachings of Iga. With
respect to dependent claims 6-14 and 25, appellants have
indicated that these claims should stand or fall with
independent claim 5 [brief, page 5]. Since appellants have
not argued the separate patentability of these claims, we
sustain the rejection of claims 6-14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The prior art
rejections of the claims have been sustained with respect to
claims 5-14 and 25, but have not been sustained with respect
to claims 1-4, 15-24, 26-28 and 30-32. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-28 and 30-32 is
affirmed-in-part.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007