Appeal No. 1999-1408 Page 9
Application No. 08/809/629
these two claims is sustained. As for claims 55-59, the appellant has chosen to group
them with claim 36, from which they depend (Brief, page 16), and they fall therewith.
With regard to those rejections which we have sustained, we have carefully
considered all of the arguments presented by the appellant. However, they have not
persuaded us that, as to these rejections, the decision of the examiner was in error. Our
position with regard to each of these arguments should be apparent from the explanations
we have offered. In addition, we wish to point out that some of the arguments presented by
the appellants fail from the outset because they are predicated upon limitations that are not
present in the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 31, 33, 36-38, 43, 45 and 49-54 as being unpatentable over
Hofmann in view of Leweringhaus is sustained.
The rejection of claims 32, 39-42 and 44 as being unpatentable over Hofmann in
view of Leweringhaus is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 34, 35 and 55-59 as being unpatentable over Hofmann in
view of Leweringhaus and Bittner is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007