Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Fessenden reference fully meets the limitations of
claims 57, 58, and 60. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claim 59. We are also of the view that the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 61-68 based
on the combination of Keeble in view of Fessenden, Barnes, and
Müller. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We also use our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to enter a
new ground of rejection of claims 59 and 61-68. The basis for
these conclusions will be set forth in detail below.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims are organized according to a
suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 3 of the Brief.
We will address these arguments accordingly, and will consider
the appealed claims separately only to the extent that separate
arguments are of record in this appeal. Any dependent claim not
argued separately in the Briefs will stand or fall with its base
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007