Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
We have sustained the rejection of claim 10 over
Dieter. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10
over the combination of Wade and Dieter. In our opinion,
Wade adds nothing to the teachings of Dieter and is less
useful than Dieter. The obviousness rejection of claim 10
is sustained. Claims 11 and 12 are not separately argued
and, therefore, fall with claim 10. The rejection of claims
11 and 12 is sustained.
Claims 20-24 and 26
Claims 20-24 and 26 are stated to stand or fall
together as a group with claims 10-17. Since the scopes of
the claims differ, we cannot accept this grouping. As noted
above, the rejection of claims 10-12 is sustained while the
rejection of claims 13-17 is reversed.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 26 over
Dieter. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 26
over the combination of Wade and Dieter.
We have reversed the rejection of claim 23 over Dieter.
Wade does not make up for the deficiency in Dieter as to
claim 23. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 23
over the combination of Wade and Dieter.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007