Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
headers which clearly teach as well various methodologies to the
extent broadly recited in representative independent claim 1 on
appeal.
In conclusion, we have reversed the rejection of all of the
claims on appeal under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We have sustained the rejection of independent claim 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 and of its dependent claims 22 and 26 since no
arguments have been presented in the brief and reply brief as to
the features recited in these two dependent claims. Finally, we
have also sustained the rejection of independent claim 1 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as a representative claim of all the
claims rejected thereunder.2 As to this rejection, no argument
is presented as to any other claim on appeal. Since our
affirmance of the examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 102 encompasses all of the claims on
appeal, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
2 Although no formal rejection was before us of claims 21, 22 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it should be apparent to the reader that in view of our
extensive discussion in this opinion, the subject matter set forth in these
claims would have been clearly anticipated as well by the teachings in
Takashima to the extent argued in the manner corresponding to independent
claims 1 and 14 had claims 21, 22 and 26 been rejected by the examiner.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007