Appeal No. 2005-0027
Application No. 09/777,874
obvious over Hastings in view of Wiegand or Burtle, by themselves or in combination.
2. Claims 11-18, 20-27 and 30-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as
obvious over Wiegand in view of Moffett.
3. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious over Hastings
by itself or in view of Wiegand or Burtle, individually or in combination, further in view of
applicant's statements in the prior art.
4. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious over Hastings
by itself or in view of Wiegand or Burtle, individually or in combination, further in view of
Weiner by itself or in combination with Stracher.
5. Claims 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious over
Wiegand in view of Moffett or Hastings by itself or in view of Wiegand or Burtle
individually or in combination, both as set forth above, further in view of Cavazza.
We affirm rejections 1 and 5 above. As our decision regarding rejections 1 and 5
disposes of all the claims on appeal, we do not reach the merits of rejections 2, 3, and 4
above. 37 C.F.R. § 40.50(a)(1).
Claim Grouping
According to appellant claims 11-18, 20-24 and 31 do not stand or fall together
with method claims 25-30. Brief, page 5. In addition, claims 25-30 stand or fall
individually and separately from composition claims and other method claims. Id. We
select claim 11 as representative of claims 11-18, 20-24 and 31. We treat method
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007