Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 15 as being
unpatentable over Russell.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 17 as being unpatentable over Russell
and the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims
16, 19, 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of
Yoneda since the appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with parent independent claims 1, 18 and 20 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 1-3, 15, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Russell is reversed;
b) to reject claims 1-3, 15, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Russell is affirmed;
c) to reject claims 4-6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Russell in view of Allemand is affirmed;
d) to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell in view of Coleman is affirmed;
e) to reject claims 7, 16, 19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007