Appeal No. 2003-1592
Application 09/492,032
Shank (Shank ‘765) 2,937,765 May 24, 1960
Shanks (Shanks ‘941) 3,680,941 Aug. 1, 1972
Estes 4,962,574 Oct. 16, 1990
Lee 5,152,161 Oct. 6, 1992
Saaf 5,678,289 Oct. 21, 1997
Biondo 5,727,291 Mar. 17, 1998
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 1 through 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Biondo in view of Estes, and further in view of Shanks ‘941 (answer, pages 3-5);
claims 12 through 15 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
as being unpatentable over Biondo in view of Estes, in view of Shanks ‘941 as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Shank ‘765 (answer, pages 5-6);
claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in view of
Estes, in view of Shanks ‘941, in view of Shank ‘765 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in
view of Saaf (answer, page 6);
claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in
view of Lee (answer, pages 6-7);
claims 30 and 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in
view of Lee as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Shanks ‘941 (answer, page 7);
claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in view of
Shanks ‘941 (answer, pages 7-8);
claims 44 and 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in
view of Shanks ‘941 as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Lee (answer, page 8);
claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in view of
Saaf, and further in view of Shanks ‘941 (answer, pages 8-9); and
claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biondo in view of
Saaf, in further view of Shanks ‘941, as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Lee
(answer, page 9).
Appellants group the appealed claims, stating that the groups of claims are separately
patentable (brief, pages 5-6). We note that groups I through IV and VIII encompass appealed
independent claims 1, 28, 43 and 46 and appealed dependent claim 47, respectively, which are
separately rejected, while groups V through VII each encompass claims representing more than
one ground of rejection. We find that appellants do not present separate arguments for
patentability in either the brief or the reply brief for individual claims, but refer to groups of
claims in arguments that group of grounds of rejection, wherein only the differences between
elements in particular claims are noted and the groups of grounds of rejection are based on
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007