Appeal No. 2003-2098 Page 14
Application No. 09/833,978
explained why the combined teachings of Freeman and Osika would not have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have modify Freeman's adapter to arrive at the subject matter of claim 2.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Osika is
affirmed.
The appellant has grouped claims 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 as standing or falling
together.1 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9
fall with claim 2. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 4,
6, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Osika
is also affirmed.
The obviousness rejection based on Freeman, Osika and Lockard
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freeman in view of Osika and Lockard but not the rejection of claims
10 and 11.
1 See page 5 of the appellant's brief.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007