Appeal No. 2001-2354
Application No. 09/186,687
3. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goetz in view of Humpolik and Pawlick.
4. Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goetz in view of Humpolik and
Beamer.
5. Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goetz in view of Humpolik and Del Monte.
6. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goetz in view of Humpolik and Del Monte, as
applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Scherer.1
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
1 This rejection appears in the examiner’s answer and the
first office action (Paper No. 6) but apparently inadvertently
was omitted from the final rejection (Paper No. 10). Since claim
8 indirectly depends from independent claim 1 via claim 6, and
claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 10 are indicated by appellants
to stand or fall together (main brief, page 4) the error of
omission of the statement of the rejection in the final rejection
does not appear to adversely affect appellants’ position on
appeal. We address this rejection, infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007