Appeal No. 2003-1911
Application No. 09/228,694
Finally, claims 1, 3, 5 and 13-16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Japanese ‘137 in
view of Watanabe.
On page 9 of the Brief, the appellants state that “[t]he
rejected claims do not stand or fall together since each claim is
considered separately patentable in its own right”. In light of
this statement, we will separately consider each claim to the
extent that it has been separately argued. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (8) (2002). Also see Ex parte Schier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
Rather than reiterate the reiterate the respective positions
advocated by the appellants and by the examiner, concerning the
above-noted rejections, we refer to the Brief (i.e., the Brief
filed December 17, 2002 as Paper No. 20) and to the Answer for a
complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
The examiner has favored us with an Answer which presents
thoroughly developed findings of fact, conclusions of law and
rebuttals to argument vis-à-vis the issues before us on this
appeal. There is no need to burden the record with our own
exposition of these issues in light of the exemplary presentation
thereof in the Answer. We shall adopt as our own, therefore, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007