Appeal No. 1998-1790
Application No. 08/711,134
being unpatentable over Fesman, considered alone, or in
combination with Buszard or Duncan or Bright. Claims 1-3 and 6-7
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Stone, considered alone, or in view of JP ‘342 and Bright.
Appellants set forth four different groups of claims at page
3 of the principal brief. However, the Argument section of
appellants’ brief fails to advance any argument that is
reasonably specific to a particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1, and we will limit our consideration of this appeal to
the examiner’s rejections of claim 1. Ex parte Ohsumi, 21
USPQ2d 1020, 1023 (BPAI 1991). See also 37 CFR § 1.192 (C)(7)
and (C)(8).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability presented in the principal and reply briefs on
appeal. However, we are in complete agreement with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the answer,
which incorporates the final rejection of July 1, 1997 (Paper No.
15) and the reasons articulated in the Board’s decision on the
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007