Appeal No. 97-3347
Application No. 08/302,864
being unpatentable over Sibley in view of James, as applied to
claim 1 above, further in view of Blegen.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 19), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 17).
In the brief (page 4), appellants indicate that claims 1
through 8 stand or fall together as a single group.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 for review,
pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), and focus our attention exclusively thereon,
infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claim 1, the applied
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007