Appeal No. 1999-2122
Application No. 08/564,659
view of Ross, Latz, Scherer and Gilboa.
Finally, claims 113, 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 153-155 and
158-162 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kiyota, Rainey or Clarke in combination with Hurwitt ‘605 and
Hurwitt ‘772 as applied above, and further in view of Lueft,
Dietrich ‘842, Dietrich ‘576 and Wirz.
The Appellant has separately grouped and argued the appealed
claims in the manner indicated on pages 20-22 of the brief.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections of claims 103, 107, 108, 111, 115, 120, 123, 124,
147, 151, 172-174 and 176. However, because the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot
sustain his rejections of claims 104-106, 109, 110, 112-114, 116-
119, 121, 122, 125-134, 137-146, 148-150, 152-165, 167, 169-171,
175 and 179. Additionally, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 135, 136, 166, 168, 177 and 178 because the
subject matter thereof is indefinite as explained hereinafter.
We consider these last mentioned claims to be indefinite
because the subject matter thereof is not consistent with the
subject matter of the parent claims from which they depend. For
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007