Appeal No. 97-0210
Application No. 08/157,050
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Demeter or Viandon.
Claims 12 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Demeter.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed February 7, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief and
Supplemental Brief (Paper Nos. 12 and 17, filed November 8,
1995 and April 7, 1999, respectively) and Reply Brief (Paper
No. 14, filed April 2, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates
on page 4 of the Brief and page 2 of the Reply Brief that the
claims do not stand or fall together but rather fall into
three groups, (1) claim 1, (2) claims 2 through 21, 23, and
24, and (3) claim 22. Appellant's arguments are consistent
with this grouping except as to claims 23 and 24, which do not
include the limitation argued for group 2. As appellant has
not separately argued the limitations of claims 23 and 24, we
will treat them as standing or falling with claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007