Appeal No. 1997-3483
Application 08/254,575
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 26 over
Lo, Lepage, Kilborn and Seckinger.
Claim 27
This claim also depends on claim 20 and is rejected over
Lo in view of Lepage and Kilborn, and further in view of
Randall. The additional reference, Randall, does not meet the
above noted deficiency of the combination of Lo, Lepage and
Kilborn. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
27 over Lo, Lepage, Kilborn and Randall.
In conclusion, we have reversed the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 20 to 28 over various combinations
of Lo, Lepage, Kilborn, Crafton, Seckinger and Randall.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007