Appeal No. 1996-3178
Application 08/407,275
Thomas 4,271,352 Jun. 2, 1981
Banks et al. (Banks) 4,635,053 Jan. 6, 1987
Saliga 5,038,023 Aug. 6, 1991
Claims 2, 3 and 7 to 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Saliga, Thomas, and Banks.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies upon Saliga and Thomas.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants (Brief, page 4) group and argue claims 2, 3 and 7 to 9 as
standing or falling together, and group and argue claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 as standing or falling together.
We are in general agreement with this grouping of the claims, and take claim 2 as being representative
of the first group, and take claim 12 as being representative of the second group for purposes of our
decision. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7).
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
2We note that the amendment submitted on March 12, 1996, accompanying the Brief, has been entered and
considered by the examiner as indicated at page 2 of the Answer. We also note that the Revocation of Power of
Attorney was received March 23, 1999, and a new power of attorney was entered as per the letter to appellants dated
April 1, 1999, Paper no. 19.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007