Appeal No. 2006-1931
Application No. 10/305,201
Russell et al. (Russell) 4,075,145 Feb. 21, 1978
Martino et al. (Martino) 5,011,630 Apr. 30, 1991
GB >7822 GB 907,782 Oct. 10, 1962
(Published Great Britain Patent Specification)
GB >7383 GB 988,738 Apr. 07, 1965
(Published Great Britain Patent Specification)
Tamm et al.4 (EP '467) EP 0256467 Feb. 24, 1988
(Published European Patent Application)
The Examiner has rejected claims 16 to 34 and 43 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
' 103(a) as obvious over the EP '467, GB >738, GB >782, Martino and Russell references,
either individually or in combination. (Answer, pp. 3 to 14).
Appellants have indicated (Brief, page 4), that the claims should be considered in the
following groups: (1) claims 16 to 18 and 21 to 32; (2) claims 19, 20, and 43; and (3) claims 33
and 34. We will consider these groups of claims separately to the extent that appellants have
argued them. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003) (now 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), effective
September 13, 2004); and In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
2 We will refer to this document as GB ‘782. The Appellants refer to this document as British ‘782. The
Examiner refers to this document as GB ‘782.
3 We will refer to this document as GB ‘738. The Appellants refer to this document as British ‘738. The
Examiner refers to this document as GB ‘738.
4 The Appellants refer to this document as European Patent. The Examiner refers to this document as EP.
We, like the Appellants and the Examiner, will rely on the English language translation of this document
which has been filed in this record.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007