Appeal No. 1997-1413
Application 07/765,757
user. The only motivation for making this substitution comes
from an improper attempt to reconstruct appellant’s invention
in hindsight. Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of
claims 1, 6, 17 and 40.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10,
17, 18 and 40 based on the teachings of Sakurada, Johnston and
Arifuku is not sustained. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 13,
14, 17, 40 and 41 based on the teachings of Ishii, Johnston
and Arifuku is sustained. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 17
and 40 based on the teachings of Hattori, Johnston and Arifuku
is not sustained. Accordingly the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 40 and 41 is
affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007