Appeal No. 2003-0667 Page 3
Application No. 09/514,699
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected on the following grounds:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wellings in combination with Lane as evidenced by the Exxon
Bulletins.
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane as evidenced by the
Exxon Bulletins.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants
regard as the invention.
Appellants state that, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the claims do
not stand or fall together (Amended Brief1 at p. 6). To the extent that the claims are argued
separately in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(2001), we will consider them separately.
We affirm, however, with respect to the rejection of claim 10, we designate our
affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection. Our reasons follow.
1The Amended Brief replaces the earlier Brief filed May 7, 2002 which the Examiner found to be non-
compliant with 37 CFR § 1.192.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007