Appeal No. 2000-2039
Application 09/176,608
In light of the foregoing, the appellants’ position on
appeal as it applies to representative claim 1 is not persuasive.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Gorton and the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Gorton.
Since claims 5 through 7 and 11 through 15 stand or fall
with claim 1, we also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5 through 7, 11, 12 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Gorton, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Gorton
in view of Focke and Manservigi, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 5 through 7, 11, 12 and 15 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Gorton, and
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 14 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Gorton,
Focke and Manservigi.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007