Appeal No. 97-2699
Application 08/112,535
through 11, 16 through 26 and 28 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable Barry, Moorehead, Gonzales and Toriu.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we make reference to
the briefs and the answer for the details thereof.2
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we agree with the Examiner that
claims 28 through 30 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain
the rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejection of remaining claims on appeal for the
reasons set forth infra.
Claims 28 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Barry, Moorehead, Gonzales and Toriu. At the outset, we note that Appellant has indicated on
page 10 of the brief the claims 28 through 30 do not stand or fall together. However, on pages 4
through 6 of the brief, we note that Appellant does not argue why claims 29 and 30 are separately
patentable over the art applied by the Examiner, but instead Appellant merely repeats the claim
language in the Appellant's arguments on pages 25 of the brief. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(July 1, 1995)
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on April 10, 1996. We will refer to this appeal brief as simply
the brief. Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on September 11, 1996. We will refer to this reply
appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed December 23, 1996
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007