Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
Claims 21-31, 33-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-48, 50-53 and 55 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being anticipated by
Thomas. Claims 21-26, 28-31, 33, 39, 40, 42-48, 50-53, and 55
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Wessels.
Claims 32, 41 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Wessels in view Murasaki.
Claims 34-37, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wessels.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Thomas in view of Shepard.
Claims 40, 42-48, 50-53, 55, and 56-701 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Wessels in view of
Allen.
The rejection of claims 32, 41 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Thomas in view of Murasaki has been
withdrawn. Answer, page 6.
To the extent that appellants provide specific arguments
regarding patentability, with respect to a particular claim, we
consider such claim in this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
1 We include claim 57 in this rejection because it depends upon claim
56. We note, however, that both appellants and the examiner did not
list claim 57 in this rejection; yet, both appellants and the examiner
state claim 57 is rejected (see Brief, page 2 and the answer, page 2
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007