Appeal No. 97-2546
Application 08/399,722
disclosed invention have no merit with regard to independent
claim 35. Absent any persuasive argument from appellant which
demonstrates error on the examiner’s part with regard to the
rejection of independent claim 35, we are constrained to
sustain the examiner’s rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 based on Takayanagi. Moreover, given appellant’s
indication on page 5 of the brief that the claims “stand or
fall together,” we note that claims 25 through 33, which
depend from independent claim 35, are considered to fall with
claim 35.
In summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
3, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Takayanagi is reversed, as is the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Takayanagi and Oikawa or Ono. However, the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25 through 33 and 35 is
sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007