Appeal No. 97-3669
Application 08/391,745
deficient insofar as the rejection of independent claim 28 is
concerned. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 26 is sustained.
As for claims 6, 13, and 14, as applied by the examiner, Kleiman
indeed does not make up for the deficiency of Aoyama. Therefore,
the rejection of claims 6, 13 and 14 cannot be sustained.
Claims 3, 10 and 23 have been rejected as being unpatentable
over the combination of Aoyama, Cornet and Won. Claims 3 and 10
depend ultimately from claim 27 and claim 23 depends ultimately
from claim 28. The appellants essentially argue merely that
Cornet and Won do not make up for the deficiency of Aoyama.
However, as discussed above, Aoyama has not been shown to be
deficient insofar as the rejection of independent claim 28 is
concerned. Accordingly, the arguments of the appellants do not
demonstrate error in the obviousness rejection of claim 23. The
rejection of claim 23 is sustained. As for claims 3 and 10, as
applied by the examiner, Cornet and Won indeed do not make up for
the deficiencies of Aoyama. Therefore, the rejection of claims 3
and 10 cannot be sustained.
Claims 2, 9 and 22 have been rejected as being unpatentable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007