Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon MacDonald in
view of Connary.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, with respect to the rejection of claims
1-8 and 11-31, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
1 Under the heading of "Grouping of Claims" (brief, page
4) appellants state that: "Under the restriction requirement,
claims 1-31 stand or fall together." Review of the
application file does not reflect any restriction requirement
of record. Nor is there any indication in the record that
this application is a divisional application. Nor is there a
restriction requirement in S.N. 07/823,738 referred to on page
8 of the specification and incorporated therein by reference.
The examiner makes no comment regarding appellants' statement
referring to a restriction requirement. Moreover, while
appellants state that claims 1-31 stand or fall together, in
the brief, appellants separately argue claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11
and 12.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007