Appeal No. 96-1869
Application 08/086,494
10 through 12 and lines 34 through 36). In light of the
above, the rejection of independent claims 3 and 11, and
respective dependent claims 7, 8, and 15, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1 through 16
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 8, and 11
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the merits, and reverse
the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 16 for the procedural
reason set forth below.
This ground of rejection relies not only upon the
Stapleton, Noble, and Miles documents, as addressed earlier in
this opinion, but also upon a patent to Young. We determined,
supra, that the combined teachings of Stapleton, Noble, and
Miles would not have been suggestive of the content of
independent claims 3 and 11. The patent to Young does not
overcome the stated deficiencies of the Stapleton, Noble, and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007