Appeal No. 95-4526
Application 08/200,251
In light of the above, we also shall sustain the
rejection of claim 38 as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Sukiennik and Nosaki.
Inasmuch as the basic thrust of our affirmance of the §
103 rejection of claims 4-10 and 38 based on Sukiennik and
Nosaki differs from the rationale advanced by the examiner, we
hereby designate our affirmance to be a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to allow appellants a
fair opportunity to react thereto (see In re Kronig, 539 F.2d
1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976).
The Rejections based on Sukiennik and Nosaki
and Other Prior Art
((rejections (b), (c) and (d))
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 6 and stand additionally
rejected as being unpatentable over Sukiennik in view of
Nosaki and further in view of Matthews (rejection (b)).
Appellants have not argued this rejection separate from the
rejection of these claims based on Sukiennik and Nosaki,
instead merely arguing that Matthews does not overcome the
deficiencies of the basic combination.
Accordingly, we shall sustain this additional rejection
-16-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007