Appeal 2006-2150
Application 09/995,927
Claims 18 and 20-27 are rejected over Freundlich ‘310 in view
of Ekins-Daukes, and claims 31-33 and 35-41 are correspondingly
rejected over these references and further in view of Freundlich ‘604;
Claims 44-47, 53, and 54 are rejected over Ekins-Daukes;
Claims 48-52, 55, and 56 are rejected over Ekins-Daukes in
view of Freundlich ‘310; and
Claims 57 and 58 are rejected over Ekins-Daukes in view of
Freundlich ‘604.
On page 5 of the Brief, the Appellants state that “[t]he rejected claims
stand or fall as being based upon the independent claims 1, 18, 33 and 44.”
Stated otherwise, no specific dependent claim has been separately argued by
the Appellants on this appeal.
For a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the Appellants and the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief filed July 12, 2004, the Reply Brief filed November 22, 2004, the
Supplemental Reply Brief filed October 7, 2005, and the Further Supple-
mental Reply Brief filed February 23, 2006 as well as the Examiner’s
Answer mailed September 21, 2004, the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
mailed August 8, 2005, and the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 23, 2005.
OPINION
We fully agree with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
rebuttals to argument expressed by the Examiner in his Answers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007