Appeal 2006-2173
Application 09/519, 999
Hoffman US 3,683,889 Aug. 15, 1972
Ooyama JP 03-136614 Jun. 11, 1991
Yoshio2 JP 06-329179 Nov. 29, 1994
Chung US 5,741,534 Apr. 21, 1998
Claims 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph
as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 20, 22-25, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
obvious over Ooyama.-
Claims 21 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over Ooyama in view of Hoffman.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman and Chung.
Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as obvious over Ooyama and Hoffman.
Claims 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman and Yoshio.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
Ooyama, Hoffman, and Chung.
We initially note that Appellant asserts that there are at least six
separately patentable groups of claims. Appellant submits that “each group
are [sic, is] separately patentable, and thus, do not stand or fall together.”
(Br. 3). Appellant has not provided separate arguments directed to the
individual claims within the separate groups. Appellant's grouping of the
claims appear to be based upon the stated prior art rejections. Consequently,
2 The Examiner in the Answer reported the wrong date for this reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007