Appeal No. 95-4957
Application 07/950,979
find appellants’ arguments more persuasive than the examiner’s
arguments. Although there is a certain similarity between the
elements named in Kronstadt and the elements of claim 1, the
examiner has not addressed all the limitations recited in the
claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over the teachings of Kronstadt. Since claims 2-
6, 8 and 10-12 depend from claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
Although appellants have argued independent claims 13 and
34 separately, we note that claims 13 and 34 contain the same
limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 and that the
examiner lumped these claims with claim 1 in explaining the
rejection. Since the exact same issues are presented for
resolution with respect to claims 13 and 34, we do not sustain
the rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed
above.
Since claims 14-19, 22, 24, 27-29 and 35 depend from one of these
claims, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of any of the claims on appeal before us. Therefore,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007