Appeal No. 2001-2423
Application 08/931,253
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sparrow or Hajny,
in view of Wolff.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, reverse the rejections over Sparrow and over Sparrow
combined with additional prior art, and affirm the rejections
over Hajny and over Hajny in combination with additional prior
art.
The appellant states that the claims stand or fall in two
groups, claims 1 and 4-13, and claim 3 (brief, page 4),1 even
though additional references are applied to dependent claims
other than claim 3 and, unlike the sole independent claim (1)
which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), many of the dependent
claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The appellant’s only
argument regarding claim 3 pertains to a rejection over Holzl in
view of Sparrow which is no longer applied by the examiner
(brief, pages 10-11).2 We therefore consider claim 3 to stand or
fall with the claim from which it depends, i.e., claim 1.
1
1 The appellant apparently erroneously includes claim 3 in
both groups.
2
2 The appellant has provided no argument on appeal directed
toward any dependent claim other than claim 3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007