Appeal No. 2005-1328
Application No. 09/734,792
unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in
view of Tsuchiya. Also, claims 20, 21 and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Limousin in
view of Tsuchiya.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants submit at page 12 of the brief that “[a]ll claims
stand or fall together for all grounds of rejection.” Accord-
ingly, the claims rejected over Limousin in view of Lundquist
stand or fall together with claim 1, whereas claims 2, 5, 8, 9,
11 and 19 stand or fall together with claim 2. Also, claims 21
and 23 stand or fall together with claim 20.
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 over Limousin in
view of Lundquist. There is no dispute that Limousin discloses
the presently claimed combination of two or more packages
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007