Appeal No. 2004 1681
Application No. 09/749,216
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 17-20, and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schwalm.
Claims 9, 14-16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Schwalm in view of Comerci.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Schwalm in view of Becker.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Schwalm in view of Becker and further in view of
Comerci.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Becker 3,621,164 Nov. 16, 1971
Schwalm 5,222,013 Jun. 22, 1993
Comerci et al. (Comerci) 5,281,155 Jan. 25, 1994
On page 5 of the brief1, appellant states that claims 1-8
stand or fall together, that claims 10-13, 16-20 stand or
fall together, and that claims 23-24 stand or fall together.
Appellant also states that claims 9, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, and
25 should be considered for separate patentability. We
therefore consider claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23,
and 25 in this appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)
(2003).
1 We use the brief filed on November 13, 2003 (Paper No. 14).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007