Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
Van Gorkom et al. (Van Gorkom) 4,303,930 Dec. 1,
1981
Hoeberechts et al. (Hoeberechts) 4,682,074 July 21,
1987
Claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19 stand rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hoeberechts. Claims 5
through 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hoeberechts in view of Van Gorkom.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 12, 13, and 16 through 19
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 5 through
8, 14, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page
8 of the brief that claims 5 through 8 and 12 through 19 are
considered to be patentable for similar reasons and are
grouped together. We note that Appellants argue all of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007