Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs
along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer.
Appellant indicates (Brief, page 6) that claims 1-6 stand
or fall together as a group while claims 8-15 stand or fall
together as a separate group. Consistent with this
indication, separate arguments for patentability have been
provided only for the limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 8, which we will
select as the representative claims for each group. We will
consider the claims separately only to the extent that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007