Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 3
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis and completeness.
§ 102(b) Rejection
At the outset, we note that appellant has stated that claims
1-7, 9, 16 and 20 (Group I) stand or fall together as a group and
that claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 31 and 32 (Group II) stand or fall
together as a group insofar as those claims are rejected as
anticipated by Coglin (brief, page 3)1 Claim 23 is grouped and
argued separately. Consequently, we select claim 1 as the
1 Claims 8, 14, 15 and 28-30 stand rejected under § 103(a).
In this regard, rejected claims 8, 14 and 15 are asserted by
appellant as not being presented for review at page 2 of the
brief not withstanding that those claims remain rejected under
§ 103(a) by the examiner and are listed as rejected claims at
page 2 of the brief. Thus, along with claims 28-30, we shall
consider claims 8, 14 and 15 as standing or falling together with
the third grouping of claims in the portion of this decision
directed to the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection because all of
those claims are subject to that common ground of rejection and
are not separately argued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007