Appeal No. 97-3669
Application 08/391,745
discussed above, Aoyama has not been shown to be deficient
insofar as the rejection of independent claim 28 is concerned.
Accordingly, the arguments of the appellants do not demonstrate
error in the obviousness rejection of claim 22. The rejection of
claim 22 is sustained. As for claims 2 and 9, as applied by the
examiner, Cornet indeed does not make up for the deficiencies of
Aoyama. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2 and 9 cannot be
sustained.
Claim 11 indirectly depends from claim 27 and is rejected as
being unpatentable over the combination of Aoyama, Cornet and
Kleiman. The appellants essentially argue merely that Cornet and
Kleiman do not make up for the deficiency of Aoyama. As applied
by the examiner, Cornet and Kleiman indeed do not make up for the
deficiencies of Aoyama. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11
cannot be sustained.
Claim 12 indirectly depends from claim 27 and is rejected as
being unpatentable over the combination of Aoyama, Cornet, Won
and Kleiman. The appellants essentially argue merely that
Cornet, Won and Kleiman do not make up for the deficiency of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007