Appeal No. 2006-0802
Application 10/151,141
claims 16, 17, 22 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kiecker in view of Ross as applied to claims 10 through 151 above and further in view
of Kozak et al. (Kozak) or Burlando (final action, pages 4-5; answer, pages 5-6);
claims 10 through 15 and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kiecker in view of Corbitt (final action, pages 5-6; answer, pages
6-7); and
claims 16, 17, 22 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kiecker in view of Corbitt as applied to claims 10 through 15 and 18-21 above and
further in view of Kozak or Burlando (final action, pages 6-7; answer, pages 7-8).
In the brief filed August 23, 2004, the Appellant states under “Status of claims” that
“Claims 10-25 are rejected” and that “[t]he appellant is appealing Claim 10, Claim 18 and
Claim 22” (page 1), and further states only the following “Issues:”
(i) Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiecker
in view of Ross (page 4);
(ii) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiecker
in view of Corbitt (page 5, 12-14 and 24-25); and
(iii) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiecker
in view of Burlando (pages 5-6).
Further in the brief, under “Grouping of Claims,” the Appellant states that each of
independent claims 10, 18 and 22 are “rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),” and includes under
each statement the claims dependent on the independent claim and whether the dependent claims
are “rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,” and/or “rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)” without particulars, noting that “[t]he dependent claims are added to the list as per
instructions from the Examiner in the Office communication dated 8/6/2004” (page 6). The
Appellant then states “[t]he claims in the group do not stand or fall together. Claim 18 is
separately patentable from the group comprising 10 and 22” (page 6).
Still further in the brief, under “Arguments,” the Appellant states that “[t]he applicant has
elected to appeal Claims 10, 18 and 22” and presents arguments only with respect to claim 10
with respect to the combined teachings of Kiecker and Ross (pages 7-10 and 23-24), claim 18
with respect to the combined teachings of Kiecker and Corbitt (pages 12-14 and 24-25), and
1 We consider the examiner’s stated claim range of “1-15” as “10-15” which reflects claims 10
through 25 of record as of the final action and the filing of the brief.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007