Appeal No. 2004-2159
Application No. 09/819,943
Appealed claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13-17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Petersen. Claim 3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Petersen in view of Sergeant, and claim 12 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petersen in
view of Wallrafen.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the principal brief that
"claims 1-3, 9-10, 13-14 and 16-17 are grouped to rise and fall
together," and that "claims 11 and 12 are grouped to rise and
fall together."
Appellants do not contest the examiner's separate § 103
rejections of claims 3 and 12. Indeed, the only issue stated by
appellants at page 4 of their principal brief is "[w]hether
claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13-17 are anticipated by Peterson [sic,
Petersen]." Accordingly, we consider appellants to have conceded
the propriety of the examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 3 and
12, which are dependent upon independent claims 1 and 11,
respectively, if the examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 1 and
11 is upheld. We, therefore, consider appellants' position to be
that the § 103 rejections of claims 3 and 12 stand or fall
together with the § 102 rejections of claims 1 and 11.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007