Appeal No. 2002-0491
Application No. 09/287,081
7, 10 through 17 and 19 as being unpatentable over Baltare in
view of Steiner.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 4, 6, 8, 18 and 20 as
being unpatentable over Baltare in view of Steiner since the
appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable
specificity, thereby permitting these claims to stand or fall
with their respective parent claims (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 8
and 10 through 20 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007