Appeal No. 2002-1223
Application 09/435,455
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over any of Oeftering, Sterett, Muntz or
Smith.1
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the
§ 103 rejections based on Muntz or Smith but not the § 103
rejections based on Oeftering or Sterett.
The rejections based on Oeftering or Sterett cannot be
sustained because, with respect to these references, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability
concerning the catching step of the here-claimed method.
With respect to this step, the examiner contends that
“[t]he catching [step] as claimed would broadly include any
1 On page 6 of the Brief, the appellant has grouped
claims 1-9 separately from claims 10-18. Accordingly, we will
focus on claims 1 and 10, which are the only independent claims
on appeal, as respectively representing these claim groups. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2001).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007