Appeal No. 2001-0463 Page 10
Application No. 09/250,863
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed in
Gille for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2 to 9 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We have also reviewed the reference to Damisch applied
with Gille in the rejection of dependent claim 10 but find
nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Gille
discussed above with respect to parent claim 1. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of appealed claim
10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007