Appeal No. 1999-0528
Application 08/472,770
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final rejection and answer,
we sustain each of the rejections of all claims on appeal, further in view of the following
embellishments of the examiner's views expressed in the answer. Appellants have
submitted arguments only with respect to independent claim 19 in the context of the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Matick and the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Ward alone. No separate arguments have been presented as
to either of these rejections for dependent claim 21 and independent claim 22.
Additionally, appellants present no arguments as to dependent claim 23 at page 15 of the
principal brief on appeal and rely for patentability upon the arguments presented for its
respective parent claim 22. Thus, the rejection of claim 23 is also sustained.
For their part, the reply brief substantially duplicates the arguments presented in
appellants' principal brief on appeal. We observe further that the responsive arguments
portion of the answer directly addresses the three primary arguments of the appellants
regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Matick and the single argument
presented as to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ward. We understand the
examiner's reasoning in the answer as essentially responding to the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 involving Ward in the same manner as he responded to the arguments
presented with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection involving Matick.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007