Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck as applied to claim
5 and further in view of Emelien is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck as applied to claim
1 and further in view of Mueller is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck as applied to
claim 1 and further in view of Kelly is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Ledesma in view of Deck
and further in view of Solin is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck as applied to claim
1 above and further in view of Solin is reversed.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007