Appeal No. 98-2156 Page 17
Application No. 08/421,489
teachings, we are at a total loss to understand why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been motivated to single
out this disparate teaching of Johnson and incorporate it into
the box of Kiley, as modified by Kimura, as the examiner
proposes. This being the case, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
the combined teachings of Kiley, Kimura and Johnson.
In summary:
The rejections of claims 1-9, 11 and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are all affirmed.
The rejections of claims 10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007