Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 5
Application No. 08/427,721
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 34, 35, and 178 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and in rejecting claims 1-5, 34, 35, 96-99, 101, 106-
110, 114-116, 144, and 153, 164, 165, and 174-178 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We are also persuaded that he did not err in
rejecting claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, and 168 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and in rejecting claims 142, 143, 151, 152,
166, 168, and 171 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part. Our opinion addresses the following issues:
• novelty of claims 1-3, 34, 35, and 178
• nonobviousness of claims 1-5, 34, 35, 96-99, 101,
106-110, 114-116, and 174-178
• grouping of claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, 168, and
171
• anticipation of claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, and
168
• obviousness of claims 142, 143, 151, 152, 166, 168,
and 171
• nonobviousness of claims 144 and 153
• nonobviousness of claims 164 and 165.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007