Appeal No. 1996-2624
Application No. 08/186,352
appellants made their invention (answer, pages 7 and 8). We
cannot support the examiner's position for the reasons
identified above with respect to the combination of Bosse and
Katori.
Rejections (3) through (5)
Claims 7 through 13 depend directly or indirectly on
claim 1. We have carefully considered the patents to
Langford, Eschler and Radzins applied by the examiner in the
various rejections of
dependent claims 7 through 13. None of these references
provide the motivation found lacking in our above discussions
of the combined teachings of Bosse and Katori and Bosse and
Ring.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the § 103 rejections of
claims 7 through 13.
Rejection (6)
Independent claim 17 and dependent claims 18 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bosse in view of Ring in combination with Langford and
Ujimoto.
Independent claim 17 is directed to the embodiment
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007