Appeal No. 2002-2266 Page 2
Application No. 09/366,477
INTRODUCTION
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Dwyer et al. (Dwyer)4,375,458Mar. 1, 1983
Chang et al. (Chang) 5,498,814 Mar. 12, 1996
Abichandani et al. (Abichandani) 5,689,027 Nov. 18, 1997
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Abichandani and Chang. Dwyer is added as further evidence of obviousness for
claims 4, 5, and 20.
Appellants state that claims 1-3 and 6-19 stand separately from claims 4, 5, and 20. With
regard to the rejection of claims 1-20 over Abichandani and Chang, there is no sufficiently
specific separate argument directed to claims 4, 5, and 20 (Brief at pp. 3-9). The claims are
grouped separately only in so far as they are rejected separately (Brief at pp. 3-10; Reply Brief at
p. 1). We, therefore, select claim 1 to represent the issues on appeal with regard to the rejection
of claims 1-20. Claims 4, 5, and 20 will be addressed separately in so far as they are argued
separately in connection with the additional rejection.
We affirm substantially for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007