Appeal No. 1996-1934
Application 07/884,218
Claims 1-14, 16, 18, 19 and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Goldberg in combination with Della Valle.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-14, 16, 18, 19, 22 and 24-31 and reverse
the rejection of claim 23.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant’s specification and claims, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 32, mailed February 8, 1995), for the examiner’s
reasoning in support of the rejection. We further reference appellant’s Brief as
amended (Paper No. 31, received July 29, 1994), and appellant’s Reply Brief
(Paper No. 34, received April 17, 1995) for the appellant’s arguments in favor of
patentability.
CLAIM GROUPING:
At page 5 of the Brief, appellant states that the claims do not stand or fall
together reciting 6 groupings. However, appellant merely points out the differences
in what the claims cover. Appellant does not argue the merits of any particular claim
apart from the others. See, Brief, pages 13-14. Therefore, with the exception of
claim 23, which will be addressed separately below, all claims, stand or fall together
with representative independent claim 1. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007