Appeal No. 2004-2354
Application No. 09/923,991 Page 4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. In so doing we find
ourselves in agreement with the examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1 and 21 and the examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 2-4, 22 and 23. However, we agree with appellant’s
viewpoint that the examiner’s obviousness rejections as they
pertain to claims 5-15, 17 and 24 are not sustainable on this
record. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellant indicates that the appealed claims subject to this
rejection stand or fall together (brief, page 6). Also,
appellant does not present separate arguments for the
patentability of each rejected claim. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this
appeal as to the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection.
Concerning representative claim 1, appellant does not
dispute that Jordan describes a device that includes an enclosure
including a fluid impervious barrier and a viscous fluid located
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007