Appeal No. 2000-1300
Application 08/853,581
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chapman, McLoughlin and Azimov, and the rejection of claims 9
through 11, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Chapman,
McLoughlin and Strain, we have reviewed the references to Azimov
and Strain, but find nothing therein which overcomes or provides
for the deficiencies we have identified above with regard to the
basic combination of Chapman and McLoughlin. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4, 9 through 11, 14,
17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be
sustained.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007