Appeal No. 2001-1969
Application No. 09/040,478
The §112, fourth paragraph rejection
We summarily sustain this rejection of claims 32 and 33
since appellants offer no argument thereagainst. It is worthy of
acknowledging that appellants indicate (main brief, page 2) that
claims 32 and 33 would be canceled if the independent claims,
i.e., claims 34 and 35, are determined to be patentable.
The obviousness rejections
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 34 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the combined teachings of Adams and
“The Joker’s Wild.” It follows that the respective rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims dependent from claims 34 and
35 are also not sustained. Our reasoning appears below.
We fully comprehend the examiner’s well stated assessment of
the applied teachings and views as to the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. Nevertheless, we readily perceive, as
more fully discussed, infra, that the collective teachings of
Adams and “The Joker’s Wild”, evaluated as a whole, would not
have been suggestive of the content of claims 34 and 35.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007