Appeal No. 1999-0004
Application 08/593,309
12. Appellants repeat the arguments discussed above as well
as pointing out additional deficiencies in Srivastava. The
examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments fails to
persuasively rebut appellants’ arguments for the same reasons
discussed above. Since Srivastava does not overcome the
deficiencies noted above in Alpert and Johnson, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 8-11, 13, 14,
16-20, 22-24 and 26-34.
We now consider the rejection of dependent claims 21
and 25 based on Alpert, Johnson, Srivastava and Gupta. Since
Gupta does not overcome the deficiencies noted above in
Alpert, Johnson and Srivastava, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 25.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007