Appeal No. 2001-0964
Application No. 09/069,442
Finally, claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Korbelak in view of Hendriks.
As indicated on pages 3-5 of the brief, the appealed claims
have been grouped separately. Accordingly, in assessing the
merits of the above noted rejections, we have individually
considered each of the appealed claims which have been separately
grouped and argued in the brief and reply brief. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(8)(1999).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the rejections before
us.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of the examiner’s Section 102
rejections. Additionally, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection of claim 19 based on Korbelak in view of
Moon. However, we will sustain each of the other Section 103
rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal. In addition,
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make a new rejection below of
certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Our reasons follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007