Appeal No. 98-2446
Application 08/593,070
disparate
references in the prior art so as to defeat patentability of
the invention as defined in appellant’s claims 1 through 3, 8
and 15 through 17 on appeal. Thus, the examiner's rejection
of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Seitz,
Lineweber and Kusta will not be sustained.
Turning now to the examiner's rejection of claims 4
through 7 and 9 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Seitz, Lineweber, Kusta and Green, and the rejection of claim
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Seitz, Lineweber, Kusta,
Green and Collier, we find nothing in the added teachings of
either Green or Collier which would overcome or provide for
that which we have indicated above to be lacking in the basic
combination of Seitz, Lineweber and Kusta. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through
7 and 9 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or that of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007