Appeal No. 1999-1666
Application No. 08/847,319
b) Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kiyota in view of Melas, Bohling and
Zhang.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 34) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejections, and appellant’s brief and reply brief (Paper No.
33 and Paper
No. 35, respectively) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
On page 4 of the brief, appellant indicated that claims
4, 47, 48, 50-52 and 54 stand or fall together and that claim
49 stands or falls alone. In keeping with appellant’s
groupings, we hereby select claims 4 and 49 from the separate
rejections for review, and we shall decide the appeal as to
the respective grounds of rejection on the basis of these
selected claims;
37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7).
OPINION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007