Appeal 2007-1695
Application 10/418,835
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 20 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Huemoeller, and we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Huemoeller in view of Barnett for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to independent claim 16.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8-11, 13-16,
and 18-20 over the cited prior art, but we have reversed the Examiner’s art
rejections of claims 1-4. We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 6, and 8-10, but we have reversed the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims 1-4. Therefore, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18-20 is affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
19
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013