Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
steps suggested by Olmer and, regardless, was well known in
the prior art.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the subject
matter of claim 5 would have been obvious within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Olmer.
F. Summary
The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
in view of Wolf is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of the admitted prior art is
affirmed. The rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) in view of the admitted prior art is reversed. The
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of
Kaanta is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Olmer is affirmed. Pursuant to our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter a new ground of
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Olmer. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed in part.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007