Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in the
final rejection as evidence of obviousness are:
Sederberg et al. (Sederberg) 5,992,023 Nov. 30, 1999
(filed Jul. 31, 1998)
Ramun 6,202,308 Mar. 20, 2001
(filed Jul. 6, 1999)
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sederberg in view of Ramun.1
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 15) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
14) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of this rejection.
Discussion
I. Claim Grouping
Appellants indicate on page 3 of the main brief that claim
17 should be considered separately from the remainder of the
appealed claims and has presented arguments specifically directed
to claim 17. Accordingly, claim 17 shall stand or fall alone.
As to the remainder of the appealed claims, appellants have
argued the patentability of these claims without regard to any
1As aptly noted by the examiner on page 5 of the answer,
claim 7 is written as two sentences. This informality is
deserving of correction upon return of the application to the
Technology Center.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007