Appeal No. 2001-0112
Application No. 08/486,494
In light of the above, the standing rejection of 1-3, 10,
11, 21 and 22 as being anticipated by Tukihara is not
sustainable.
The Section 103 rejection of claim 14 based on Tukihara has
also been considered. Even if we were to agree with the examiner
that the dimensions called for in dependent claim 14 are obvious
matters of design choice, the subject matter as a whole of claim
14, which depends from claim 1, would not result for the reasons
discussed above. Therefore the rejection of claim 14 also cannot
be sustained.
The Suzue reference additionally applied in the Section 103
rejection of 12, 13, and 17, and the Cushman reference
additionally applied in the Section 103 rejection of claims
15 and 16 have been considered, but do not make up for the
deficiencies of Tukihara discussed in our treatment of claims 1-
3, 10, 11, 21 and 22. Therefore, the Section 103 rejections of
these claims likewise cannot be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007