Appeal No. 1997-2919
Application No. 08/573,921
Schnur et al. (Schnur) 5,079,600 Jan. 7,
1992
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for obviousness. The claims, and the references applied
against those claims, are grouped as follows:
I. Claims 2, 6 and 9 (Schnur in view of Gulla).
II. Claims 3 and 4 (Schnur in view of Gulla, further
taken in view of either Bach or Lombardo).
III. Claims 5 and 7 (Schnur in view of Gulla, further
taken in view of Nakayama).
After consideration of the entire record in light of the
opposing positions presented on appeal, we agree with the
examiner that claims 2-4, 6 and 9 fail to define patentable
subject matter within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, we shall reverse the rejection relating to claims 5
and 7 for the reasons presented by appellants.
As a preliminary matter, the examiner has indicated that
the copy of claim 2 appearing in the Appendix to appellants’
brief is incorrect. The correct version appears on page 10 of
appellants’ specification. We also note that the copy of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007