Appeal No. 2002-1054 Page 7
Application No. 09/436,333
reasons stated above in regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
We turn lastly to the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cooley in view of Eastman as applied to claims 1, 2,
7, and 10 to 19 above and further in view of Sebring. We have reviewed the disclosure
of Sebring and determined that Sebring does not cure the deficiencies noted above for
the combination of Cooley and Eastman. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection of
claims 8, 9 which are dependent on claim 1 for the same reasons stated above in our
discussion of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In regard to claim 20, we have reviewed the disclosure Sebring and determined
that Sebring does not cure the deficiencies noted above for Cooley and Eastman in our
discussion of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 15 from which claim 20
depends. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection for the same reasons given in our
discussion of the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
The examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is sustained.
The examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2 to 9, 14 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007