Appeal No. 2002-2205
Application 09/220,291
sustain the anticipation rejection of any of the claims on
appeal.
Even if we were to sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, appellants have separately argued the dependent claims.
The examiner has ignored appellants’ arguments in support of the
separate patentability of the dependent claims. Therefore, we
would still not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the dependent
claims because the examiner has failed to respond to appellants’
arguments with respect to these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Mullins in view of Ludwig. Since Mullins is deficient for
reasons noted above, and since Ludwig does not overcome the
deficiencies of Mullins, we also do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 7.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007