Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
to eliminate a separate adapter. Similarly, nothing in the
claimed invention requires a reduction in the number of seals.
Appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 8) that Fain's use of a dummy
lead teaches away from appellants' invention, since Fain requires
an extra seal, but appellants' claims do not preclude the use of
a dummy lead and an extra seal. Consequently, we will sustain
the rejection of representative claim 1 and the claims grouped
therewith, claims 2, 3, 6 through 10, and 13 through 15.
Appellants (Brief, pages 10-11) argue against the
obviousness of claims 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 over Fain alone.
Appellants (Reply Brief, page 9) contend that such rejections
over Fain alone appear in the Final Rejection dated February 28,
2000. We find no such rejection. The examiner has consistently
rejected all of the claims over the combination of Stutz and Fain
(see the Final Rejection, page 2). The portion of the Final
Rejection referenced by appellants discuss sections of Fain as
part of the combination of Stutz and Fain, not as a separate
rejection over Fain alone. Therefore, all arguments addressing
Fain alone are considered moot.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, although the examiner
includes these claims in the statement of the rejection, he makes
no reference to these claims in the explanation of the rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007