Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 14
Application No. 08/370,540
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3, 5 to 8, 31 and 33 to 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 4, 10, 24, 30, 32, 40, 41 and 43
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 4, 10, 24,
30, 32, 40, 41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also affirmed
since the appellants have not challenged this rejection with
any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing claims 4, 10, 24,
30, 32, 40, 41 and 43 to fall with claims 1 and 2 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Claim 16
The appellants argue that claim 16 is patentable since it
recites that the bottom member is a tray and since Zlotnik's
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007