Appeal No. 1996-4174 Page 10
Application No. 08/134,204
Separately rejected claims 19-27 require all of the
limitations of claim 16. Moreover, we note that the examiner
has not established that Welch remedies the deficiencies of
the teachings of Binning. Consequently, we will not sustain
the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 19-27 over the
combined teachings of Binning and Welch.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Binning is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 16-18 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Binning and to reject claims
19-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Binning
in view of Welch is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007