Appeal No. 2001-2086
Application No. 09/012,152
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Allbright or
Litz, and over Allbright or Litz in view of German '727 or
German '824.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the principal brief that none
of the appealed claims will be argued separately and that "[t]he
claims in issue therefore stand or fall together."
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but not the examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Also, inasmuch
as we concur with the examiner that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied
prior art, we will sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. While the
examiner discusses that it does not appear that appellants are
claiming what seems to be their invention, the substance of the
rejection centers upon the claim 1 recitation that "the
additional conveying member being effective over only a part of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007