Appeal No. 97-0320
Application No. 08/096,261
unpatentable over Müller in view of Mizuno is sustained.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant has indicated (Brief,
page 7) that claims 1 and 3 do not stand and fall together.
We note, however, that Appellant's arguments with regard to
claim 3 are directed to the same claim limitations as appear
in claim 1. Since we have previously determined that the
arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive of error
by the Examiner, and since Appellant makes no additional
arguments with respect to claim 3, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 3 under U.S.C. § 103.
For all of the above reasons, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007