Appeal No. 1999-0503
Application 08/744,207
Although appellants’ additional arguments in the
briefs with respect to Hanson and Deki are not convincing, the
examiner’s failure to properly interpret the recitation in
clause (g) of claim 1 results in the failure to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. We note that a similar
recitation appears in independent claim 16. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 16 as set
forth by the examiner. Since separately argued claim 20
depends from claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 20.
We now consider the rejection of claims 10-13 and 15.
Independent claim 10 has a similar recitation to the
recitation of claim 1 considered above. Therefore, the
examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers the same problems
discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13 and 15.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007