Appeal No. 1999-0937
Application No. 08/646,530
Claims 2, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cockram.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cockram.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cockram in view of Morford.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cockram in view of Drew.
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 14), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 13).
In the brief (page 4), appellant expressly indicates that
the patentability of the dependent claims are not argued apart
from the independent claims from which they depend. Accordingly,
we shall focus exclusively upon independent claims 1 and 14, with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007