Appeal No. 1998-2472
Application No. 08/614,324
Sheppard et al. (Sheppard) 5,130,936 Jul. 14,
1992
Coker et al. (Coker) 5,168,413 Dec. 01,
1992
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 through 18, and 20 through
24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Meyer in view of Sheppard.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Sheppard and
Coker.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed April 15, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 28, filed February 21, 1997) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.1
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates
on pages 11-12 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or
fall together. Appellant argues the claims in the following
four groups: (1) claims 4, 7, 8, 17, and 20; (2) claims 5, 6,
13, 14, 18, 19, 23, and 24; (3) claims 21 and 22; and (4)
Since the examiner did not permit entry of the Reply Brief (Paper No.1
30, filed June 20, 1997), we will not consider the arguments made therein.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007