Appeal No. 1998-1125 Page 3
Application No. 08/410,247
II. Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Smits II. Claims 1-6 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smits I.
Since appellants do not argue any of the claims
separately as they are grouped with respect to each of the
above-noted grounds of rejection (brief, page 3), our focus
here is primarily limited to the application of each separate
ground of rejection to one claim within each grouping, in this
case the subject matter defined by independent claim 1. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8) (1995).
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. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s
§ 112, second paragraph rejection and the § 103 rejection over
Smits I are not sustainable. However, we shall sustain the
examiner’s rejections based on Smits II. Our reasoning
follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007