Appeal No. 2002-1107 Page 3
Application No. 09/662,540
Claims 1-4, 6, 13-21, 23, 30-38, 40 and 47-51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Koleske. Claims
1-8, 12-25, 29-42, and 46-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koleske. Claims 1-8, 12-25,
29-42, and 46-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roth.
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by appellants and by the examiner concerning
the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants state that the rejected claims do not stand or
fall together. See page 3 of the brief. However, as correctly
determined by the examiner (answer, paragraph bridging pages 2
and 3), appellants have not presented separate arguments for each
of the appealed claims in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
and (c)(8) (2000). Nor have appellants challenged that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007