Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
Because of the cancellation of claims 42 through 44, the rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is moot. Otherwise, all claims on appeal
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In a first stated, basic rejection as to
claims 1, 2, 7 through 9, 12 through 19, 21 through 23, 30, 31, 33 through
42, 44, and 45 through 52, the Examiner relies on Eldridge in view
Neukermans. In a second stated rejection, the Examiner adds Hayakawa to
this basic rejection as to claims 3 through 6 and 24 through 27. In a third
stated rejection, the Examiner adds Browning to the first rejection as to
claims 10, 20, 28, 32, and 43. Lastly, in a fourth stated rejection, the
Examiner adds Hochendoner to the first rejection as to claims 11 and 29.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm-in-part.
At the outset, we note that each of independent claims 1, 12, 16, 22,
30, 34, 38, 45, 47, 48, and 49 of the claims on appeal stand rejected under
the first stated rejection relying upon Eldridge in view of Neukermans.
Inasmuch as pages 8 through 13 of the principal Brief on appeal treat the
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 45 collectively, we will address
the arguments as to these claims, the rejection which we affirm. As to each
of the other remaining independent claims on appeal, we reverse the
rejection of them and their corresponding dependent claims.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013