Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and
Sorensen is remanded. Since claims 12-15 are dependent on claim 11, the rejection of claims
12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and
Sorensen is also remanded. See 37 CFR § 1.75(c) (2004) (“Claims in dependent form shall be
construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent
claim.”).
G. Rejection of claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer. See Answer, p. 8.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 13. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker and Sorensen has been remanded. See
section “F.,” supra. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer is also remanded. See 37
CFR § 1.75(c) (2003) (“Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the
limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.”).
H. Rejection of claims 17-19
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Peiker, Sorensen and Cramer. See Answer, p. 8.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16, claim 18 is dependent on claim 17, and claim 19 is
dependent on claim 18. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007