Appeal No. 1996-2239 Page 4
Application No. 08/037,485
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the argument advanced
by appellant and the examiner. We agree with the examiner that
the rejection of claims 1 through 5, 15, and 17 through 19 is
well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain that rejection. We
agree with the appellant that the aforementioned rejection over
Stephen in view of Andersen of claims 6 through 14, and 20
through 28 is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not
sustain that rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 1 through 5, 15, and 17 through 19
As an initial matter, appellants’ Brief contains a
statement that claims 5 and 19, Group II, and claims 6 through
14 and 20 through 28, Group III, do not stand or fall together
with claims 1 through 4, 15, and 17, and 18, Group I.
Accordingly, we will consider each set of claims separately.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007