Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
(2) Claims 5, 9 and 10 over JP ‘604 in view of Boileau;
(3) Claims 6, 7 and 11 over JP ‘604 in view of Boileau and
EP ‘230; and
(4) Claim 14 over JP ‘419 in view of JP ‘514.
Appellant submits at page 5 of the principal brief that
“[f]or each of the rejections, the claims as grouped by the
Examiner stand together.” Accordingly, the following groups of
claims stand or fall together: I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13;
II. Claims 5, 9 and 10; III. Claims 6, 7 and 11; IV. Claim 14.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon
in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent and thorough disposition of the
arguments raised by appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the
examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 12 and 13 under § 103 over EP ‘230 in view of Lagnier and
either JP ‘604 or JP ‘514.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007