Appeal No. 96-2023
Application No. 08/139,642
statement of rejection of the independent claims. In any
event, Sedam does not provide for the deficiencies noted supra
with regard to independent claims 8, 9 and 14.
Since Davis provides no reason to the skilled artisan for
modifying APA in any manner which would result in the claimed
subject matter and neither Aoki nor Sedam adds anything which
would suggest such a modification, we find the examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based
on a combination of these references, to be improper.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007