Appeal No. 2004-0118 Page 8
Application No. 09/214,663
17 and 18, we note that the appellant has grouped these claims with other claims,
rather than urge that they are separately patentable based upon these limitations.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12 and 15-18 is sustained.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13 and 14 is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/hh
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007