Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
(VI). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peiffer in view of Blemberg, as applied to claims l-7, 9,
10, 13-28, 30, 33, 35, 37, and 38, and further in view of Arita.
(VII). Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-30, 33, 35, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peiffer in view of Keller.
(VIII). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peiffer in view of Keller, as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 10,
13-30, 33, 35, 37, and 38, and further in view of Arita. (Answer, pp. 3-15).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner
and Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections are well founded. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejections, we
refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
We initially note that Appellants assert that for purposes of appeal
there are at least two separately patentable groups of claims. Group 1
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007