Appeal No. 1998-0558
Application No. 08/564,942
23-26, 30 and 31 stand or fall together. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See
also 37 CFR 1.192 c(7) and c(8) (1997).
Appealed claims 2-5, 8, 23-26, 30 and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Riehm or
Berger or the admitted prior art in view of Yamasaki, or
Yamasaki, taken alone, or in view of Riehm.
We have thoroughly reviewed appellant's arguments for
patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied upon
in support thereof. However we are in complete agreement with
the
examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103
in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the answer.
Appellant's specification characterizes the present
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007