Appeal No. 98-3291
Application 08/534,705
unobviousness of such a substitution. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
sustained.
In accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims on
page 4 of the brief, it follows that claims 9 and 10 will fall
with independent claim 8, from which they depend.
To summarize: the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 5 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellant regards as the invention, is
reversed, as is the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Copenhaver and
Spinosa. However, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Copenhaver in view of Lorenzana is affirmed.
Thus, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007