Appeal No. 2001-1827
Application No. 08/696,404
appellant’s arguments commensurate in scope with the express language of
independent claim 13. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive, and we will
sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-17 which
have been grouped therewith by appellant. Also, since appellant has not provided
separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claim 20, beyond merely
paraphrasing the language of the claim at page 14 of the brief, we will similarly group
claim 20 as falling with independent claim 13.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 13-17 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007