Appeal No. 2002-0834
Application 09/275,386
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view
of Bohnen.
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Bohnen and further in view
of Ishizuka.
On page 7 of the brief, appellants state that claims 1-3 and
5-7 stand or fall together, that claims 4 and 8 stand or fall
together, and that claims 17-20 stand or fall together. However,
we note that appellants provide arguments for patentability
regarding claims 1, 4, and 8, but do not provide separate
arguments regarding claim 17. We therefore consider claims 1, 4,
and 8. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1571, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1525 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018
(Bd.Pat.App.Int. 1991). 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2000).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ brief and reply brief and to
the examiner’s answer.
As a consequence of our review, we affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 17-20 over
Johnson in view of Bohnen. We reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 4 and 8.
I. The rejection involving Johnson in view of Bohnen
On page 10 of the brief, appellants acknowledge that Johnson
discloses deoxidizing compositions similar in composition to the
composition of their claimed invention, with the exception that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007