Appeal No. 2002-1671 Page 18
Application No. 08/993,985
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(iv). Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be
treated as falling with their respective independent claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d
1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that the decision
of the examiner to reject claims 2, 3, 6, 8 to 16, 59 to 62 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chaikof in view of Berg is also affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 to 16, 19
to 21, 36, 37, 39 to 49 and 51 to 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kawai in view of Fontaine is reversed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1 to 4, 6, 8 to 16, 18 to 21, 36 to 49 and 51 to 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chaikof in view of Berg is affirmed with respect to claims 1 to 4, 6, 8
to 16, 56, 59 to 62 and 67 and reversed with respect to claims 19 to 21, 36, 37, 39 to 49
and 51 to 55, 57, 58 and 63 to 66.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007