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