Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
(2) a rejection of Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and 58-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness
in view of the combined teachings of Otto Bergler (Bergler),
U.S. Patent 4,531,441, issued July 30, 1985; Katsuyasu Ito et al.
(Ito), U.S. Patent 5,357,834, which issued October 25, 1994, from
U.S. Application 08/063,289, filed May 18, 1993; Johnson; Haffner;
Langworthy; and Ambrosio; and
(3) a rejection of Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and 58-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness in
10 view of the combined teachings of Ito; Johnson; Haffner;
Langworthy; and Ambrosio.3
The patentability of Claims 2, 3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and 58-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) stands or falls with the patentability of
Claim 1. Appellant states (AB 3):
For the convenience of the Board, Appellant will argue
the patentability of independent claim 1. The other claims
stand or fall together with claim 1.
3 The examiner refers to a rejection of Claim 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness in view of the prior art
applied to Claim 1 and “Brickner et al. ‘902" as a “Non-Issue”
(EA 10). Since the examiner does not completely identify
“Brickner et al. ‘902" in his answer and appellant acknowledges
that Claim 37 stands or falls with the patentability of Claim 1,
we shall not consider the patentability of Claim 37 separately.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007