Appeal No. 2000-1746
Application 08/791,098
time of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of that claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It
follows that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2
through 6, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Krumholz and Baldwin will also not be sustained.
We have also reviewed the British reference to Lang
applied along with Krumholz and Baldwin against dependent
claims 7 through 12 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, we find nothing in Lang which overcomes the
deficiencies in the basic combination of Krumholz and Baldwin
noted above or otherwise renders obvious the device set forth
in claim 1 on appeal or in claims 7 through 12 which depend
therefrom. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
7 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not
be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007