Appeal No. 2004-1586
Application No. 10/132,863
4) Claims 8 and 92 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Edge, either Kasprzycki or
Kebarian, and either Lemberg or Kanzelberger; and
5) Claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Sports Pub, either Kasprzycki or
Kebarian, and either Lemberg or Kanzelberger.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
respective positions. As result of this review, we have made the
determinations which follow3.
During prosecution of a patent application, the claims
therein
2 In the event of further prosecution of this application,
the examiner is advised to determine whether claim 9 violates the
requirement of the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3 The appellant states that claims 1 and 4 do not stand or
fall together. See the Brief, page 5. As is apparent from the
above, however, claims 8 and 9 are subject to a different
rejection than claims 1 and 4. Therefore, for purposes of this
appeal, we select claims 1, 4 and 8 as representative of the
claims on appeal subjected to the different grounds of rejection
set forth by the examiner and determine the propriety of such
rejections based on these claims alone consistent with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007