Appeal No. 2005-1180
Application No. 09/791,298
combination of Peiker, Pickard and Sorensen. See Answer, p. 10.
Claim 31 is dependent on claim 20, and claims 32-35 are ultimately dependent on claim
20. 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.”). Sorensen
fails to cure the deficiencies noted above in section "I." Therefore, the rejection of claims 31-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Pickard and
Sorensen is reversed.
M. Rejection of claim 36
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Peiker, Pickard, Sorensen and Cramer. See Answer, pp. 10-11.
Claim 36 depends from claim 35 which ultimately depends from claim 20. 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 claim 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Peiker, Pickard, Sorensen and Cramer is
reversed.
N. Rejection of claim 37
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007