Appeal No. 96-1781
Application 08/389,521
Udipi et al. (Udipi) 4,135,037 Jan. 16, 1979
Howell, Jr. 4,255,305 Mar. 10, 1981
Erickson et al. (Erickson) 5,247,026 Sep. 21, 1993
THE REJECTION
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Howell, Jr.,
Anderson, Bozzi, Erickson and Udipi.2
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 references.
Accordingly, we sustain the aforementioned rejections.
Appellants state that claims 12 and 14 should be
considered separately from claims 11 and 13 (brief, page 4).
We limit our discussion to one claim in each group, i.e.,
claims 11 and 12. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2,
2The examiner’s reliance upon patents 3,699,184 to Taylor
et al. and 5,229,464 to Erickson et al. is withdrawn in the
examiner’s answer (page 2).
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007