Appeal No. 1997-1380
Application 08/301,508
rejection of claim 15, or of claim 17 which depends 4
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Helinski in view of
Pomerantz.
Finally, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 18, which depends from claim 13, as being
unpatentable over Helinski in view of Pomerantz. As pointed
out by the examiner (see page 8 in the main answer), Helinski
discloses the selective removing step recited in this claim.
In summary, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1 through 5, 9 through 15, 17 and 18 is affirmed with respect
to claims 1, 13, 14 and 18, and reversed with respect to
claims 2 through 5, 9 through 12, 15 and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
4 Claim 17 depends from claim 15 through claim 16. It is
unclear why the examiner withdrew the rejection at issue with
respect to claim 16 but not claim 17.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007