Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
Rejection of claims 5 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 5 is rejected as being obvious over Hubbard in view
of APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor. Claim 5 depends on claim
1 and contains at least the limitations of claim 1. Pastor
does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Hubbard
in view of APA, Auslander, Calvi that was used to reject claim
1. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 5 over
Hubbard in view of APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor is not
sustainable.
Claim 20 is rejected as being obvious over Hubbard in
view of APA, Auslander, Calvi and “applicant’s another [sic]
admission” [supplemental answer, page 7]. Claim 20 depends on
claim 1 and contains at least the limitations of claim 1. The
“applicant’s another [sic] admission”, which refers to another
page of the specification, namely: page 1, lines 12 to 21,
does not cure the deficiencies noted in the suggested
combination of Hubbard in view of APA, Auslander and Calvi in
regard to claim 1. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of
claim 20 over Hubbard in view of APA, Auslander, Calvi and
“applicant’s another [sic] admission” is not sustained.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007