Appeal No. 2001-2578
Application No. 08/977,547
Klotzbach et al. (Klotzbach) 5,796,742 Aug. 18, 1998
(filed Jan. 14, 1997)
Plakosh et al. (Plakosh) 5,825,991 Oct. 20, 1998
(filed Oct. 30, 1995)
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Klotzbach.
Claims 5, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Plakosh.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Plakosh and Klotzbach.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed March
27, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief (Paper
No. 18, filed January 11, 2001)2 for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate their
intention that claims 6, 7 and 9 stand or fall together and
claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12 and 13 stand or fall together while claim
11 stands or falls independently of the other claims (brief, page
10). However, Appellants have not, in the arguments section of
the brief, provided separate arguments according to this
2 The appeal brief was re-filed to include an appropriate signature,
which was omitted in the originally filed appeal brief (Paper No. 16, filed
October 18, 2000).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007