Appeal No. 2004-0324
Application 09/387,350
2 and 3 of the answer, but otherwise referred to beginning at the
bottom of page 6 of the answer. Lastly, claims 17-20 also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the initial stated
combination of references, further in view of Light. This
reference also has not been listed by the examiner in the list of
prior art of record in Topic 9 at pages 2 and 3 of the answer,
but otherwise identified at the top of page 8 of the answer.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellant's positions, and to the answer for the examiner's
positions.
OPINION
We reverse. Beginning at page 5 of the answer, appellant
indicates that all claims may be grouped with respect to our
consideration of claim 1 for convenience on appeal. Since the
second and third stated rejections are not separately argued by
appellant but in turn rely upon the combination of the three
references in the first stated rejection, we take claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter on appeal. The nature
of the subject matter of independent claim 9 corresponds
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007