Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
appellants and Sakakida. Accordingly the examiner’s
rejections of claims 4, 11, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will likewise not be sustained.
Turning to the last of the examiner's rejections,
that of dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of MacFadden, we are
at somewhat of a loss to understand exactly what the
examiner’s position is here given that neither of the
independent claims 1 and 8, or intervening dependent claims 3
and 10 are rejected on the combination of prior art applied
against dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14. We assume for
purposes of this appeal that all of the limitations of claims
1, 3, 6 and 7, and claims 8, 10, 13 and 14 are considered by
the examiner to be present in the combination of Rogers and
MacFadden.
In this instance, we again note our agreement with
appellants that MacFadden is non-analogous art. Moreover,
even if MacFadden were to be considered to be analogous art,
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007