Appeal No. 2000-1498
Application No. 08/721,623
together as a group with the independent claims (brief, pages
8 and 10). The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 4 and
14 are sustained because appellants have again chosen to let
these dependent claims stand or fall as a group with independent
claim 1 (brief, page 11). Appellants’ argument (brief, page 11)
that neither Murakami nor Russ discloses the claimed filtered
activity values is without merit since Sugiyama is relied on by
the examiner for such a filter.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6,
9, 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2, 4 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007