Appeal No. 1998-0878
Application No. 08/322,749
rejection of any of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6, 7, 16 and 17
based on the teachings of Suwa in view of Hosio and Katoh.
Independent claims 6 and 16 contain language similar to the
language of claim 10 considered above. Since Katoh does not
remove the deficiencies of the proposed combination of Suwa
and Hosio discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
any of these claims.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 22 and 23
based on the teachings of Suwa in view of Hosio and Yamauchi.
These claims depend from claim 10. Since Yamauchi does not
remove the deficiencies of the proposed combination of Suwa
and Hosio discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
either of these claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007