Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
Claims 22-24, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.5
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hajec, Rabe, and Petersen.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hajec, Rabe, and Yamashita.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hajec, Rabe, Petersen, and Moon.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 24) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for Appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Only argued limitations are addressed
We confine our analysis to issues and differences argued
in the brief. Under USPTO rules, an appellant's brief is
required to describe how the claims distinctly claim the
invention and to specify the particular limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art or
Claims 28 and 29 have not been rejected or indicated5
to be allowable. We treat them with the § 103(a) rejection of
their parent claim 22 over Hajec, Rabe, and Petersen.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007