Appeal No. 2000-1315
Application 09/152,563
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
claims 1, 17 and 23.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 17 and 23, or of claims 2
through 4, 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 30 which
variously depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over
Famolare in view of Bauer.3
Inasmuch as the examiner’ application of Ludwig, Gillet,
Guarrera, McCord, Leclercq and Trentin does not cure the above
noted failings of the basic Famolare-Bauer combination with
respect to parent claims 1, 17 and 23, we also shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 5, 20 and 26 as being unpatentable over Famolare in
view of Bauer, Ludwig, Gillet and Guarrera, or the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 7, 22 and 28 as
being unpatentable over Famolare in view of Bauer, McCord,
Leclercq and Trentin.
3Upon return of the application to the technology center,
the examiner should reconsider the relevance of U.S. Patent
No. 2,325,741 to Chertok, which is of record, to the subject
matter recited in claim 17 and the claims depending therefrom.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007