Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 9
through 11, 15 through 18, and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and the
examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 4, 12 through 13, 19
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Grouping of the claims.
At the outset, we note that appellants’ arguments group the claims in four
(4) groups. On pages 4 through 9 of the brief appellants provide arguments
directed to claim 1 and assert that the other claims rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 are allowable for the same reasons. On pages 9 and 10 appellants
provide arguments as to why the limitations common to claims 2, 12 and 19 are
not taught by Teper. On pages 10 and 11 of the brief, appellants provide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007