Appeal No. 2002-2073
Application No. 09/210,104 Page 4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
We observe at the outset that appellants assert (brief, page
4) that "claims 1-24 stand or fall together as a single group."
Consistent with this statement, appellants arguments are generic
to each of the claims. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14-19, and 22-24, rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Borchardt in view
of Mann, and select claim 4 as representative of claims 4, 5, 12,
13, 20, and 21, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Borchardt in view of Mann and further in view of Alexander.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse. We
begin with the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11,14-19, and 22-24
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007