Appeal No. 2001-2168
Application No. 09/083,307
However, after reviewing all of the evidence before
us, we are satisfied that when all the evidence is
considered, including the totality of the evidence of
nonobviousness, the evidence of nonobviousness is
insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness as in
Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 450 F.2d 714, 719, 21
USPQ2d 1053, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We will therefore
sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 7 and 16. We will
also sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 21 because claims
7 and 21 have been argued as a group as noted supra. In
addition, we will sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 5,
6, 10-15, 17 and 23 because claims 5, 6, 10-17 and 23 also
have been argued as a group as noted supra.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the
following new grounds of rejection are entered against
claims 10 through 15, 17, 21 and 23:
1. Claims 10-15, 17, 21 and 23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as being indefinite and hence as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellant regards as his invention.
2. Claim 21 is rejected under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being based on a specification which, as
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007