Appeal No. 96-3146
Application 07/986,489
There are two other independent claims among these
claims.
Claim 17 is another apparatus claim and claim 11 is a method
claim. Each of these claims contains a limitation
corresponding to the limitation of claim 1 stated above.
Thus, they are also not rendered obvious by the examiner's
suggested combination of Ragland, Miekka, Maczuszenko and
Kuehrle.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
the independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and the dependant claims
2 through 4, 6, 8 to 10, 12 through 16, and 20, based on the
teachings of Ragland, Miekka, Maczuszenko and Kuehrle is
reversed.
B. Rejection of claims 5, 7, 18 and 19
The examiner rejected these claims in his supplemental
answer under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ragland in
view of Miekka, Maczuszenko and Kuehrle as applied to claims
under A above, and further in view of Torok, [supplemental
answer, page 4].
Since Torok does not cure the deficiencies of the applied
art in the rejection discussed in A above, the rejection of
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007