Appeal No. 2004-0737
Application No. 10/141,443
claims 1 through 5, 10, 11, 21 through 27, 32
through 34, 36, 37, and 60 stand or fall with claim 1;
claims 6 through 9, 14, 18, 19, 28 through 31, and
35 stand or fall with claim 6;
claims 12 through 16 stand or fall with claim 12; and
claims 17 and 20 do not stand of fall with any
other claims.
In light of appellants’ claim groupings and the argument
advanced in the briefs, we would focus our attention below upon
claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 20, with the remaining claims standing
or falling with the respective selected claim from its group. As
it turns out, we need only address independent claim 1.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims,1 the applied teachings,2
1 Claim 60 depends from independent claim 1 and references
“the plunger.” However, a plunger is recited in claim 4, not
claim 1. For purposes of this appeal, we shall understand
claim 60 as being dependent from claim 4. During any further
prosecution before the examiner, the noted antecedent basis
deficiency for claim 60 should be addressed and resolved.
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007