Appeal No. 1998-0236
Application No. 08/472,536
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 35. We will also sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 36 through 38 since the patentability of these claims
has not been argued separately of claim 35. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 and In re Burckel,
592 F.2d at 1178-79, 201 USPQ at 70.
In summary, we have (1) affirmed the examiner’s
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 14 though 16 and 30 though 38
and (2)
reversed the examiner’s rejections claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 17
through 26, 28 and 29. The examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed in part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Harrison E. McCandlish, Senior )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007