Appeal No. 96-3480 Page 9
Application No. 08/142,381
or suggest this limitation and the examiner has not given any
reasoning as to why this limitation would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellant's invention. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 through 6
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4
through 6 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 3 for
the reasons express supra with respect to claim 3.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed and the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 3 through 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007