Appeal No. 1998-0953
Application No. 08/467,084
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 7 and 8, which depend from claim 1, and claims 16
and 17, which depend from claim 13, include all of the
limitations of their respective parent claims. Our review of
Craig, which is applied by the examiner along with Holcomb and
Canno to reject claims 7, 8, 16 and 17, indicates to us that
this reference does not supply the deficiencies in the
combined teachings of Holcomb and Canno noted above.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of these claims.
The rejection of claims 11, 20 and 21
Our review of Restello which is used in combination with
Holcomb and Canno to reject claims 11, 20 and 21,
respectively, reveals that it also fails to supply the
deficiencies in Holcomb
and Canno discussed above. Since claims 11, 20 and 21 are
dependent from claims 1 or 13, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007