Appeal No. 2004-1330
Application 09/538,089
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Brush.
Claims 2, 6, 8-11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brush and Siefert.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the appeal brief (revised) (Paper No. 22)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The claims are stated to rise and fall together (Br4).
Therefore, since the patentability of the dependent claims is not
separately argued, independent claim 1 will be taken as
representative of claims 1-7 because claim 1 is rejected as
anticipated, and independent claim 8 will be taken as
representative of claims 8-11, 13, and 14 because claim 8 is
rejected as unpatentable for obviousness.
Claims 1-7
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007