Appeal No. 2001-0490 Page 3
Application No. 08/524,206
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an insufficient disclosure to support or enable the
scope of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (e) as
anticipated by Chu ‘985 or Chu ‘522 in light of Bielinska.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner relies on Chu ‘985 or Chu ‘522 in the
alternative, in addition to Bielinska, Mannino, Marishita and Tomita.
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and
affirm the prior art rejections.
CLAIM GROUPING
According to appellants (Brief, page 5), “[f]or each ground of rejection, the
claims stand or fall together.” Since all claims stand or fall together, we limit our
discussion to representative independent claim 1. Claims 3, 5-8, 13 and 14 will
stand or fall together with claim 1. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007