Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 9
Application No. 08/105,899
rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
unpatentable over Mega is also reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 2-5, 8 and 15-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of
Hägglund, we have also reviewed the Hägglund reference but
find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of
Mega as discussed above. Accordingly, the examiner's
rejection of claims 2-5, 8 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mega in view of Hägglund is reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claims 6 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of the
admitted prior art found on page 8 of the specification, as
these claims depend from claims 1 and 14 respectively, the
rejection of claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
With regard to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Kraus, we have also
reviewed the Kraus reference but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Mega as discussed above.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007