Appeal No. 1998-0209
Application No. 08/452,153
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Borse in view of Jones.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the Answer mailed July 3, 1997
(Paper No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the Brief filed June 3, 1997
(Paper No. 9) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
As a preliminary matter, we note that at page 5 of the
Brief appellant has identified claims 1 through 4 as a single
group and that the patentability of claims 3 and 4 have not
been separately argued. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 2
for review, and claims 3 and 4 shall stand or fall with the
respective claim from which they depend. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007