Appeal No. 2002-1567 Page 8
Application No. 09/197,729
product construction specified in those claims. See page 6 of
the brief. Appellants only argument with respect the second
claim grouping relates to the cushioning properties specified in
claim 1. Consequently, it follows that we shall also sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 13 and 14.4
4 We note that claims 13 and 14, as well as claims 5, 7, 8,
9 and 18 ultimately depend from canceled claim 4. Thus, in the
event of further prosecution of those claims, the examiner and
appellants should resolve that improper dependency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007