Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
Appellant’s arguments [brief, pages 13 to 14] and Examiner’s
position [answer, pages 5, 6, 8 and 9] in regard to these
claims. Claims 16 and 21 depend on the independent claims 6
and 17 respectively and, therefore, contain at least the same
limitations as discussed in regard to claims 6 and 17. Since
Abramson does not cure the deficiencies of Orbits in regard to
those limitations, the obviousness rejection of claims 16 and
21 is also not sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 to 13, 15, 17 to 20, 22 and
23 over Perazzoli. We have not sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 20, 22 and
23 over Orbits. We also have not sustained the obviousness
rejection of claims 16 and 21 over Orbits and Abramson.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2,
6, 7, 10 to 13, 15, 17 to 20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Perazzoli, rejecting claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to
20, 22
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007