Appeal No. 2002-0515
Application No. 09/222,092
DeVries and Burchill; and claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over DeVries and Barrera.2 (Answer, pp. 3 to 9).
Appellants have indicated, Brief page 3, that for each ground of rejection the claims
stand or fall together. Thus, for each ground of rejection, we will select a single claim as
representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103
rejections are well founded. We affirm primarily for the reasons advanced by the Examiner
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 19 and 20 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DeVries. We select claim 1 as representative of
the rejected claims.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
and the prior art rejection of claim 21. (Answer, p. 2).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007