Appeal No. 2000-1594
Application No. 08/543,101
respect to claims 1 and 16 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions for combining Roach, Hara and Levanto are not shown.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 16, nor of claims 2, 3, 5-14, 17-19, 21
and 22 dependent thereon.
We note that the Examiner relies on Krenz in combination
with Roach, Hara and Levanto to reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We find nothing in Krenz that is capable of curing the
deficiencies noted above with respect to the rejection of claims
1 and 16. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 15
over Roach, Hara, Levanto and Krenz is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007