Appeal No. 2002-1831
Application No. 08/841,320
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 30), while the complete statement of appellant's argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 29 and 31).
In the main brief (page 7), appellant indicates that (1)
claims 1, 3, and 5 stand or fall together, (2) claim 4 is
separately patentable, (3) claim 7 is separately patentable, and
(4) claims 10 and 11 stand or fall together. Accordingly, we
select claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 for review below, with the
remaining claims in respective claim groupings standing or
falling with the selected claim of the group.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the Board
has carefully considered appellant's specification and claims,
the applied teachings,2 and the respective viewpoints of
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007