Appeal No. 95-0907
Application 07/774,757
and/or Tuttle et al. is not an issue before us in this appeal.
Claims 11 and 20 each depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1. The examiner has applied the appellant's own disclosed
prior art to satisfy the features added by claims 11 and 20.
However, as applied by the examiner, the disclosed or admitted
prior art does not make up for the deficiencies of Wang and
Rattan insofar as the features of claim 1 are concerned.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rattan cannot
be sustained.
The rejection of claims 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wang, Rattan, and the appellant's
disclosed prior art cannot be sustained.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007