Appeal No. 2005-1827
Application No. 10/227,761
I. Claims 78-79 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Angell.
II. Claims 80 and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Hartshorn.
III. Claims 82-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Murch.
IV. Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Goderis.
V. Claims 76 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Siegler and Lesko.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer (mailed October 19, 2004) and the Brief (filed July 30,
2004) for the Appellants’ arguments there against.
Appellants have indicated that the claims as rejected should stand or fall
together. (Brief, p. 6). Accordingly, for each ground of rejection, all of the
claims will stand or fall together and we will select a representative claim and
limit our consideration thereto.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007