Appeal No. 95-0057
Application 07/775,114
1, and we find it unconvincing for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claims 7-11, appellants simply argue that these
claims further restrict claim 6 and, therefore, are patentable.
These are not considered separate arguments with respect to the
dependent claims so that claims 7-11 stand or fall with
independent claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 6-11 as presented by the examiner.
III. The rejection of claims 12 and 14
based upon D’Avello in view of Fuwa and
further in view of Iwanami.
Appellants argue that these references are sufficiently
different that there is no motivation to combine these references
as proposed by the examiner [brief, page 18]. We do not agree
with this position for reasons discussed above as well as reasons
given by the examiner [see answer, pages 26-27]. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection or claims 12 and 14.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 based on
Kemppi, D’Avello or Harris in view of Fuwa is sustained with
respect to claims 1 and 4 but is reversed with respect to claim
5. The rejection of claims 6-11 based on D’Avello in view of
Fuwa is sustained. The rejection of claims 12 and 14 based on
D’Avello in view of Fuwa and further in view of Iwanami is
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007