Appeal No. 2005-1579 Page 3
Application No. 09/963,625
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner
with regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection of those
claims for substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in
the answer. However, our disposition of the examiner’s separate
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 is another matter. Concerning
these latter claims, we are in agreement with appellants that the
examiner’s rejection thereof should be reversed. Our reasoning
follows.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 5, appellants
maintain that the appealed claims are argued separately (brief,
page 6). However, appellants rely on the same arguments for the
patentability of claim 5 as was presented for claim 1. See page
14 of the brief. Consequently, we consider claims 1 and 5 to
stand or fall together on this record. We select claim 1 as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007