Appeal No. 1999-0172
Application 08/334,733
combinations are not convincing.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Rudnicki in view of Mansell or Bickley, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Burns
in view of Mansell or Bickley, and the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Welles
in view of Mansell or Bickley.
Since the appellants have grouped dependent claims 2, 3
and 5 through 9 with claim 1 for purposes of this appeal (see
page 2 in the main brief and page 1 in the reply brief), we
also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 2, 3 and 5 through 7 as being unpatentable over
Rudnicki in view of Mansell or Bickley, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5 through 7 as being
unpatentable over Burns in view of Mansell or Bickley, and the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5
through 9 as being unpatentable over Welles in view of Mansell
or Bickley.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007