Appeal No. 1998-0488
Application No. 08/496,234
the rejection of claims 16-20 for at least the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 9.
We note that appellant has argued several of the
dependent claims separately. Since we have not sustained the
rejection of any of the independent claims, we need not
discuss in detail the limitations of these dependent claims.
We do observe, however, that the examiner has essentially
ignored these limitations of the dependent claims in
formulating the rejection and in responding to appellant’s
arguments. Therefore, we agree with appellant that these
claims would have been separately patentable even if we had
agreed with the examiner’s rejection of the independent
claims.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007