Appeal No. 2000-2045 Page 12
Application No. 09/206,253
The rejection of claims 15, 18, and 29 as being unpatentable over Bates in view of
Cornish is sustained.
The rejection of claims 17, 19, 28 and 30-34 as being unpatentable over Bates in
view of Cornish is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 16, 23, and 26 as being unpatentable over Bates in view of
Cornish and the related prior art is sustained.
The rejection of claims 22, 24, 25 and 27 as being unpatentable over Bates in view
of Cornish and the related prior art is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 35 as being unpatentable over Bates in view of Cornish and
Marino is sustained.
The rejection of claim 36 as being unpatentable over Bates in view of Cornish and
Marino is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007