Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and Cramer. See Answer, pp. 9-10.
Claim 24 is dependent on claim 23, claim 29 is dependent on claim 28, claim 43 is
dependent on claim 42, and claim 48 is dependent on claim 47. 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.”). Cramer fails to cure the deficiencies
noted above in section "I." Therefore, the rejection of claims 24, 29, 43 and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and Cramer is reversed.
K. Rejection of claims 25, 30, 44 and 49
Claims 25, 30, 44 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and Cramer. See Answer, pp. 9-10.
Claim 25 is dependent on claim 24, claim 30 is dependent on claim 29, claim 44 is
dependent on claim 43, and claim 49 is dependent on claim 48. The rejection of claims 24, 29,
43 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker,
Pickard and Cramer has been reversed. See section “J.,” supra. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 25, 30, 44 and 49 as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and
Cramer is also reversed. 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.”).
L. Rejection of claims 31-35
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007