Appeal No. 1996-3859
Application No. 08/278,910
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient for supporting a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in claim
19. We therefore reverse the rejection of this claim and the3
rejections of claims 20-32 and 35 which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom.
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 36 and 37
over Vanneste ‘472 in view of Hoffmann is affirmed. The
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 19-26, 32, 35 and
38 over Vanneste ‘472 in view of Hoffmann, and claims 27-31
over
3The examiner does not rely upon Vanneste ‘394 or
Bourgois for teachings which would remedy the above-discussed
deficiencies in Vanneste ‘472 and Hoffmann.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007