Appeal No. 2002-2211
Application No. 09/304,393
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
references:
Fabo3 WO 9609076 A1 Mar. 28, 1996
(Published PCT international application)
Brassington et al.4 (Brassington) GB 2192142 Jan. 06, 1988
(Published UK patent application)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over either Fabo or Brassington. (Answer p. 2).
Appellants have indicated (Brief, p. 3) that, for the purposes of this appeal,
the claims stand or fall together. Consistent with this indication, Appellants have
not made separate arguments with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all
of the claims will stand or fall together and we will limit our consideration to
claim 1. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and
the Brief. For the reasons set forth below, and in the Answer, we will sustain the
3 Appellants and the Examiner, in the Brief and the Answer, refer to this document by
the document number.
4 Appellants and the Examiner, in the Brief and the Answer, refer to this document by
the document number.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007