Appeal No. 97-2907
Application 08/314,146
The rejection of claim 2, a claim dependent from claim 1,
further includes the teaching of Summons. The teaching of
Summons, however, does not overcome the deficiency of the
Chang and Handels documents discussed above. Thus, the
rejection of claim 2 must also be reversed.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 24, 25, claims 15 through 21
and claims 22 and 23
We reverse the respective rejections of claims 9, 10, 12,
24, claims 15 through 21, claims 22 and 23, and claim 25.
Appellant argues these rejections on the basis of the
failure of the combined teachings of Chang and Handels to be
suggestive of modifying the device of Chang as proposed by the
examiner. Since we agreed earlier that the Chang and Handels
documents would not have been suggestive of their combination
according to the examiner’s rationale, and further find that
the additional teachings of Lucony and Hutton do not overcome
the earlier noted deficiency of Chang and Handels, the
respective rejections of the specified claims must be
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007