Appeal No. 1997-3691 Page 4
Application No. 08/298,018
Claims 6 and 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feist in view of
Rodder or Sitaram and Osinski. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Feist in view of Rodder or Sitaram and Osinski, and further in view of Jin and
Thomas. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feist in view of
Rodder or Sitaram, Osinski, Jin and Thomas, and further in view of Huang . 2
Appellant states (brief, page 4) that “[c]laims 6 and 10-13 stand or fall together” not
withstanding the separate grounds of rejection that pertain to dependent claims 12 and 13. We note
that appellant only presents arguments directed towards claim 6, the sole independent claim before us
on appeal. Accordingly, the claims will be considered to stand or fall with claim 6, See 37 CFR §
1.192 (c) (7) and (c) (8) (iv) (1996).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed March 4, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 21, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
2 Appellant lists (brief, page 4 ) the issues on appeal as including whether claims 6 and 10-13 are definite as
defined under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. A rejection of claims 6 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2) as
indefinite is not found in the examiner’s answer. We note, however, that the rejection was set forth in the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, filed January 16, 1996), and was modified by the examiner in the advisory action (Paper No. 6,
filed April 1, 1996) that was sent out in response to the amendment (Paper No. 7, filed April 26, 1996) filed
subsequent to the final rejection. The rejection of claims 6 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2) has been briefly
argued by the examiner (answer, page 9). However, since the rejection of claims 6 and 10-13 has not been set forth in
the “Grounds of Rejection” found in the examiner’s answer, the rejection is considered to have been withdrawn by
the examiner, and not before us for decision on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007