Appeal No. 2000-0816
Application No. 08/938,875
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-6, 20, 23-25, 39, 42-44, 57, 60-62, 75 and 81
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suisse in view of Ohlsson.
Claims 7, 10-13, 26, 29-32, 45, 48-51, 63, 66-69, 82, 85,
88 and 89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suisse in view of Ohlsson and further in
view of Lucki.
Claims 14, 17-19, 33, 36-38, 52, 55-56, 70 and 73-74
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suisse in view of Chaconas and further in view of Ohlsson.
Appellant includes a statement in his brief that all
rejected claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we
like appellant, will limit our consideration to independent
claim 1 on appeal.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claimed subject matter on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007