Ex parte ARCHIBALD et al. - Page 13




          Appeal No. 1998-1289                                                        
          Application 07/906,492                                                      


            between the subject matter recited in claims 24 and 26                    
            and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a                   
            whole would have been obvious at the time the invention                   
            was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.                    
            Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.                       
            103(a) rejection of claims 24 and 26 as being                             
            unpatentable over Ware in view of Nelson.                                 


                 In view of the appellants’ statement that                            
            “[d]ependent claims 25, 28, 29 and 30 stand or fall with                  
            independent claim 24" (main brief, page 6), we also shall                 
            sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.  103(a) rejection of                      
            claim 25 as being unpatentable over Ware in view of                       
            Nelson and the standing                                                   
            35 U.S.C.  103(a) rejection of claims 28 through 30 as                   
            being unpatentable over Ware in view of Nelson and                        
            Overbeck.                                                                 


            II. The 35 U.S.C.  103(a) rejections of claims 31                        
            through 41                                                                


                                         13                                           





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007