Appeal No. 1997-3497 Page 5
Application No. 08/312,295
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find ourselves in
substantially complete agreement with the examiner that the
applied references' teachings would have rendered the herein
claimed subject matter prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Moreover, we agree with the examiner's
rebuttal of appellants' arguments as set forth in the answer.
Accordingly, we shall affirm both of the examiner's § 103
rejections. We offer the following for emphasis and
completeness.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-24 and 28
Appellants have identified six separate groups of claims,
five of which pertain to the examiner's first mentioned § 103
rejection, and appellants have stated that all of the claims do
not stand or fall together (brief, pages 10-12). However,
appellants have not separately argued the patentability of the
dependent claims with any reasonable degree of specificity with
respect to the rejections that remain before us. See 37 CFR
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007