Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
claims 4 and 5 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Wakeley; claims 36, 37, 69, 102
and 103 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and IEEE 802.3u-1995; claims 42, 75, 89
and 95 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Crayford; claims 45, 47, 78, 80, 93, 111
and 113 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, Mills and Crayford; claims 48-51, 54, 55,
57, 61, 114-117, 120, 121, 123, 127, 132, 134, 138 and 140 over Feuerstraeter in view of
Cochennec and IEEE 802.3u-1995; claims 52, 53, 58, 59, 118, 119, 124, 125, 133 and 139
over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Mills; claims 56, 62, 122 and
128 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Crayford; and claims 60
and 126 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995, Mills and Crayford.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellant states that “[c]laims 1-5, 21-22 and 30-140 (all pending claims) may be
grouped for argument with respect to all 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections” (brief, page 4).
Although references in addition to Feuerstraeter and Cochennec are applied to some
independent and dependent claims, the appellant does not argue that the additional limitations
in those claims render those claims separately patentable. Hence, we limit our discussion to
the issue argued by the appellant (which is common to all claims), i.e., whether Feuerstraeter
and Cochennec disclose or would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
attempting and failing to establish a link. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79,
201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260
(CCPA 1972); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007