Appeal No. 95-3290
Application 08/062,156
overcome the deficiencies of Klumpp and Osterlund [brief, page
15].
We again agree with appellant. Claim 1 recites many
of the same features which we previously considered with
respect to claim 7. Since Usui does not make up for the
deficiencies we noted above in Klumpp and Osterlund, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 for reasons we have
previously discussed. Since claims 2-5 depend from claim 1
and claim 10 is grouped with claim 1, 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. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7 and 9-15 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007