Appeal No. 2000-0503 Page 14
Application No. 08/902,031
After reviewing all of the evidence before us, including the totality of the appellants'
evidence, it is our conclusion that, on balance, the evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh
the evidence of obviousness discussed above and, accordingly, the subject matter of claims 83,
108, 121 and 132 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 at the time the appellants' invention was made. See Id.
Therefore, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of these claims, as well as claims
84, 86, 87, 90-96, 98, 99, 102-107, 145, 146, 148, 149 and 152-156 which stand or fall with
claim 83, claims 109, 111, 112 and 114-120 which stand or fall with claim 108, claims 122,
124, 125 and 127-131 which stand or fall with claim 121 and claims 134, 135 and 137-144
which stand or fall with claim 132, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toth.
As appellants have not separately argued the patentability of claims 85, 88, 97, 100,
110, 113, 123, 126, 133, 136, 147 and 150 apart from claims 83, 96, 108, 121, 132 and 145
from which they depend, we shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toth in view of Gerhard.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground
of rejection.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007