Appeal No. 1998-2213
Application 08/655,863
Claim 11
The appellants argue only that Scholten fails to make up for
the deficiencies of the other applied references with respect to
limitations in independent claim 6 and dependent claim 7 from
which claim 11 depends (brief, page 11). This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons given above regarding claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed invention would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6-9, 12
and 14-17 over Sugaya in view of Kurimura, and claim 11 over
Sugaya in view of Kurimura and Scholten, are affirmed.
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007