Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
Claims 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Stonestreet and
Tousignant.
Claims 10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Tousignant, and claims
11, 16 and 18 are correspondingly rejected over these references in
further in view of Stonestreet.
As indicated on page 4 of the brief, the appealed claims have
been grouped by the appellant in accordance with their claim
groupings in the above noted rejections. Therefore, the claims in
each of these respective groupings will stand or fall together.
We refer to the brief and to the answer (as well as the final
Office action mailed August 25, 2004 which is referred to on page 3
of the answer) for a complete exposition of the contrary viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the Examiner concerning these
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by the Examiner and below, we will
sustain each of the rejections before us on this appeal.
As an initial matter, we note that the appellant makes the
unembellished statement "Tousignant ... is drawn from a different
field of art" (Brief, page 6). It is questionable whether this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007