Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell in view of Coleman.
Claims 7, 16, 19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Yoneda.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell in view of Rensch.
Attention is directed to the brief (filed April 8, 2005) and
answer (mailed June 14, 2005) for the respective positions of the
appellants and examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. Grouping of claims
In the brief (see pages 3-5), the appellants have grouped
together claims 1, 18 and 20, claims 2-4, claims 5-6, claims 7-9
and claims 10-12, respectively, and have not separately argued the
patentability of any individual claim apart from the others in the
same group. Thus, for purposes of the appeal, claims 18 and 20
stand or fall with claim 1, claims 3 and 4 stand or fall with
1 Although the examiner’s statement of the rejection based on Russell and Yoneda does not
mention claims 19 and 22, the accompanying explanation clearly indicates that the omission was
inadvertent.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007