Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
available to appellants to swear behind the filing date of the
Paul reference. In that appellants have not otherwise challenged
the positions taken by the examiner in concluding that claims 1,
2, 4-6 and 8-12 are unpatentable over Zacharias PCT ‘238 in view
of Paul, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 will be sustained.
Rejection (f): the rejection of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a)
Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) “as
being unpatentable over Zacharias et al, alone, in view of
Lichstein or Vukos, or in the alternative, Zacharias et al and
Paul, in view of Lichstein and Vukos.” We understand this
rejection to be based on the combined teachings of Zacharias PCT
‘238, Paul, Lichstein and Vukos.
Appellants argue that Zacharias PCT ‘238 is not available as
prior art against claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 3 and 7 depend either directly or indirectly from claim
1 and therefore include all the limitation of that base claim.
For the reasons discussed above in our treatment of the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12 (i.e., rejection
(d)), this argument is not well taken.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007