Appeal No. 2002-2174
Application No. 09/263,166 Page 4
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. Upon
consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-part.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-25, 27,
28, 30-32, 34-41, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58-60, 63-69, 71, 73, 75-78,
81-83, 93-95 and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We note at the
outset that appellants list 28 Groups of claims that have been
separately argued. However, we decline to follow appellants'
groupings because the groupings do not align properly with the
dependency of the claims. For example, appellants' Group 2
(brief, page 8) lists claims 5, 6, 9, 13, 63 and 76. Although
claims 5, 6, and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1
(Group 1), claim 13 depends from independent claim 12, which is
argued in appellants' Group 13. In addition, claim 63 depends
from claim 55, which is argued in appellants' Group 7. In our
Decision, we will first address the independent claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), followed by the dependent claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We will then address the
dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly,
although we address the claims in a different order than
appellants, all of appellants' arguments have been carefully
considered. We begin with claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007