Appeal No. 2003-1533
Application No. 09/566,910
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 9,
filed November 25, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 11, filed
April 3, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates on
page 4 of the Brief that the claims stand or fall in three
groups: I) claims 1 and 3 through 6, II) claims 7, 9 through 14,
16 through 18, 25, and 27 through 31, and III) claims 2, 8, 15,
19 through 24, and 26. Further, appellant provides arguments as
to the separate patentability of each group. Accordingly, we
will treat the claims as falling into the three groups proposed
by appellant, with claims 1, 7, and 8, respectively, as
representative, and with the claims within each group as standing
or falling together.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9
through 14, 16 through 18, 25, and 27 through 31, but reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, 15, 19 through 24, and 26.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007