Appeal No. 2002-1982
Application No. 08/863,462
Claims 14, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hunt and Cameron and further in view
of Uchiyama.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 22, mailed
September 12, 2000)1 for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 21, filed June 27, 2000) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 24, filed October 12, 2000) for Appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellant indicates that the
claims do not stand or fall together (brief, page 7). While,
Appellant provides arguments, which appear to be separate and
related to each claim individually (brief, pages 8-46), identical
arguments centered around Hunt and the recited features of claim
1 are repeated. Therefore, as directed by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(July 1, 1999), we will consider Appellant’s claims as standing
or falling together as far as they related to the same ground of
rejection.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 10
and 15, Appellant’s main point of argument is that Hunt provides
1 The answer refers to the final rejection (Paper No. 19, mailed March
16, 2000) for the complete text of the rejections.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007