Appeal No. 1997-0918
Application 08/160,301
In view of the foregoing, and in view of appellant's
grouping of the claims at page 4 of the principal brief on
appeal, and due to the fact that there are no arguments
presented as to the further specifics of independent claim 5
and dependent claims 2 through 4 and 6 through 8, all these
claims fall with appellant's arguments restricted to the
feature common to both independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal
just discussed.
Before we address the features recited in dependent
claims 32 and 35 as argued by appellant at pages 6 and 7 of
the principal brief on appeal, we observe that appellant has
not argued any substantive distinction with respect to Zaidi
used by the examiner in combination with Yamaoka nor has
appellant argued that the references were not properly
combined within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
As to the feature common to dependent claims 32 and 35,
appellant argues only the showings and features taught and
suggested in Yamaoka and not those provided by Zaidi. In the
discussion bridging pages 6 and 7 of the principle brief,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007