Appeal No. 2003-1106
Application No. 09/825,896
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
claiming the same invention as that of claims 22-24 of Steiner.
On page 3 of the Brief, appellants states that the claims
stand or fall together according to the ground of rejection. We
therefore consider claim 25. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and
(8)(2001).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ Brief and the
examiner’s Answer. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is well-founded for the
reasons set forth below.
I. Claim Construction of the Claims of Steiner
Each of the claims 22, 23, and 24 of Steiner depend upon
claim 21.
For illustrative purposes, if claim 22 was rewritten in
independent form, including the limitations of base claim 21,
claim 22 would read, in part, as set forth below. For the sake
of simplicity, the text regarding formula I of claim 22 has been
omitted, but is the same as that set forth in column 28, lines
30-68 through column 29, lines 1-25.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007