Appeal No. 1997-1231
Application No. 08/308,985
Therefore, we conclude that the suggested combination of
Roberts and Oda is improper and the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness to reject the
independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 4 to 6, 7, 8 and
9 over Roberts and Oda.
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11
These claims are rejected over Roberts, Oda and Ruff.
Since all these claims depend on claim 1, directly or
indirectly, they each contain at least the limitations
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, the
additional reference, Ruff, does not cure the deficiencies
noted above in the rejection of
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
2, 3, 10 and 11 over Roberts, Oda and Ruff for the same
rationale as claim 1 above.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007