Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
view of Danielson and Hale since the appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these
claims to stand or fall with their respective parent claims 48,
58, 71 and 81 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 49 and 73 as being
unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Nemirofsky
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 49 and 73 as being unpatentable over Tamada
in view of Danielson and Nemirofsky since the appellant has not
challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing
these claims to stand or fall with their respective parent claims
48 and 71 (see In re Nielson, supra).
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 64 and 65 as
being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Germain
As Germain does not overcome the above noted deficiencies of
Tamada and Danielson with respect to parent claim 63, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 64 and 65 as being unpatentable over Tamada in
view of Danielson and Germain.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007