Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Edmonds and Good.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 17 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 18) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. Grouping of claims
On page 8 in the main brief, under the “Grouping of
Claims” heading, the appellants state that independent claim 1
and dependent claims 2 through 8, 12, 13 and 31/1 stand or fall
together, independent claim 27 and dependent claims 25, 26, 28
and 31/27 stand or fall together, and independent claim 29 and
dependent claims 14, 15 and 24 stand or fall by themselves. In
accordance with these groupings and consistent with the
substantive arguments advanced in the briefs, claims 2 through
8, 12, 13 and 31/1 shall stand or fall with claim 1, claims 25,
26, 28 and 31/27 shall stand or fall with claim 27, and claims
14, 15, 24 and 29 shall stand or fall alone.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007