Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 5
Application No. 09/468,292
A number of rejections were withdrawn after the filing of the appeal (Answer, pp. 3-4),
but the Appellant and Examiner have wisely retained the numbering of the issues presented in the
Brief and Amended Brief.2 We will do likewise and we further break down some of the issues
into subparts according to Appellant’s grouping of the claims. The rejections according to our
breakdown are as follows:
Issue (1): Claims 1, 3-9, 23, 24, 46-49, 57, 59-64 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frigo in view of Freemantle.
We break this issue into two parts in accordance with Appellant’s grouping of the
claims (Amended Brief, p. 4):
Issue (1a): Claims 1, 3-9, 23, 24, 46-49, 57, 61-64, and 72
Issue (1b): Claims 59 and 60
Issue (2): Claims 2, 20-22, 33, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Frigo
and Freemantle and further in view of AAPA. For this issue, the claims stand or
fall together (Amended Brief, p. 4).
Issue (6) Claims 34-36, 38, 39, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Frigo and Freemantle and further in view of Biefeld or Hartmann. For this issue,
the claims stand or fall together (Amended Brief, p. 5).
2The Amended Brief replaces the originally filed Brief and we, therefore, address the issues as presented in
the Amended Brief and the Reply Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007