Appeal No. 1998-3385
Application No. 08/601,551
the second group. This claim is rejected on the same basis as
claims
30-37 and 42-43. As discussed above, the Examiner fails to9
provide motivation for combining Borovoy, Vu/Post, Woolsey,
and Lisle. Therefore, the rejection of claim 40 on this
combination must fail.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 30, 40, and 42-43 nor of claims 31-37
which depend from claim 30. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9 While paragraph 1, page 3 of the answer lists claim 40
as being rejected over Borovoy in view of Woolsey, Lisle, and
Vu/Post, the record fails to reflect a discussion of the
elements of claim 40. Likewise, the final rejection mailed
August 12, 1997, fails to provide a basis for the rejection.
The initial office action mailed January 2, 1997 rejects claim
40 on the same basis as that provided for claims 30-37.
However, as claim 40
differs significantly in scope from claims 30-37 and 42-43,
the basis of the rejection for this claim remains unclear.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007