Appeal No. 2001-2443
Application 09/108,541
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the Applicants regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li, further in view of
Farley.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Maples in view of Carles or Ibister with or without Li, further in view of Samuelson.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
The Appellants have separately argued claims 11 and 20. Accordingly, we will
address claims 1, 11, and 20 separately. The remaining dependent claims stand or fall
together with their independent claims. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2, 48
USPQ2d 1635, 1636 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 37 CFR §1.192(c)(7)(1999).
DISCUSSION
Procedural Matters
We note that the Appellants appear to have filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on
October 27, 2000. (Reply Brief, page 1, footnote 1). A copy of the Supplemental
Appeal Brief was provided to us via facsimile on September 24, 2002, after the oral
hearing, is attached hereto, and made of record.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007