Appeal No. 1998-2834
Application 08/659,858
teachings of Fischer et al.” (brief, sentence spanning pages
10-11). Thus, it is clear that appellants do not separately
argue the patentability of claim 29 apart from claim 18.
Under these circumstances, the standing § 103 rejection of
claim 29 also will be sustained.
Summary
The rejection of claims 18 and 22-27 as being
unpatentable over Kao KK in view of Kenney is affirmed as to
claims 18, 23-25 and 27, but is reversed as to claims 22 and
26.
The rejection of claims 21 and 28 as being unpatentable
over Kao KK in view of Kenney and further in view of Noda is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 29 as being unpatentable over Kao
KK in view of Kenney and further in view of Fischer is
affirmed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007