Appeal 2007-1385
Application 09/997,347
The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 34 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2.
The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
Claims 23, 24, and 26-33 are rejected over:
a) Yoshinori in view of Curtze and Teranishi;
e) Teranishi in view of Curtze and further in view of Yoshinori
and/or Van Der Putten;
i) Anderson in view of Curtze and further in view of Yoshinori and/or
Van Der Putten;
m) Franz in view of Curtze and further in view of Yoshinori and/or
Van Der Putten.1
To reject the other claims, the Examiner relies upon the above
combinations of prior art and adds additional references. To reject claim 25,
the Examiner adds Kizaki; to reject claims 34, 35, 37, and 38, the Examiner
adds Tweadey and Volkmann; to reject claim 36, the Examiner adds
Tweadey, Volkmann, and Kizaki.2
Appellant requests review of the obviousness rejections.
II. DISCUSSION
The rejection of claims 26 and 34 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 2 is not listed by Appellant as a rejection to be reviewed on appeal (Br. 4-
8). As Appellant does not contest this rejection, we summarily sustain it.
1 The designations “a),” “e),” “i),” and “m)” match the designations for the
rejections used by Appellants in the Brief (Br. 4-20).
2 Appellants list these rejections as rejections b-d, f-h, j-l, and n-p.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013