Appeal No. 2004-1193
Application 09/639,324
We have also reviewed the patents to Van Duyn, Sheedy,
Wanner and Daniell applied by the examiner against dependent
claims 4 through 13 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However,
we find nothing in these references which alters our view of the
examiner’s basic combination of Pew, Volz and Nichting as
discussed above. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pew and Volz “as applied to claims 1 and 3 above,” and
further in view of Van Duyn; claims 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pew and Volz “as applied to
claim 3 above,” and further in view of Sheedy; claims 10, 11 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pew and
Volz “as applied to claim 1 above,” and further in view of
Wanner; and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pew, Volz and Wanner as applied to claim 10
above, and further in view of Daniell, are also not sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007