Appeal No. 1998-1746
Application No. 08/427,462
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for obviousness. The claims, and the references applied
against those claims, are grouped as follows:
I. Claims 1-5, 7 and 10-13 stand rejected over the
combined disclosures of Kumar, Wehner et al. and Wehner.
II. Claim 6 stands rejected over the references applied in
(I) above, further in view of Kobori and Okino.
III. Claims 8-9 stand rejected over the references applied
in (I) above, further in view of Angell.
After careful consideration of the entire record in light
of the respective positions presented by the examiner and by
the appellants, we agree with the examiner that claims 1 and
7-13 fail to define patentable subject matter within the
context of 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 2-6 essentially for the
reasons presented by appellants.
With regard to the rejections which relate to claims 1
and 7-13, we note that appellants base the patentability of
dependent claims 7-13 solely upon arguments presented with
regard to associated independent claim 1. Thus, dependent
claims 7-13 stand or fall with claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007