Appeal No. 1997-3189
Application 08/592,898
Claims 7-9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Balliello in view of Geigy ‘438 or
Geigy ‘464.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that
the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention over the
applied references. Accordingly, we affirm the aforementioned
rejection.
Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 4). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim,
i.e., claim 25. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37
USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995). The examiner states that Geigy ‘438 and
Geigy ‘464 are equivalents (answer, page 3), and our review of
the references indicates that their disclosures are essentially
the same. Consequently, we limit our discussion to one of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007