Appeal No. 1998-1610
Application No. 08/551,319
will not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims.
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are dependent, directly or
indirectly, on claim 8. Hargest, Saviez or Padjen is used in
addition to Thorn and Spann to reject one or more of claims
13, 14, 16 and 17. Like Hargest and Saviez discussed above,
Padjen fails to supply the deficiencies in Spann previously
noted. Accordingly, we will not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these claims.
In summary, all of the examiner's rejections of
claims 1 through 17 are reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007