Appeal No. 2003-1379
Application No. 09/769,334
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the appellant (Brief, pages 3 and 4):
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are independent claims.... Dependent
claims 3, 5 and 7 are separately patentable while the
remaining dependent claims stand or fall with parent
claim 1.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we limit our discussion
to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 through 9 pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) (2002). Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 through 9 are set forth
in the Appendix.
PRIOR ART REFERENCES
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Allen 3,782,588 Jan. 1, 1974
Beuck et al (Beuck) 5,542,626 Aug. 6, 1996
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Beuck and Allen.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007