Appeal No. 1999-1051 Page 9
Application No. 08/652,740
Claim 10, which depends from independent claim 1, was rejected along with claim
1. For reasons set forth above that have to do with the lack of a prima facie case of
obviousness being established with regard to claim 1, we did not sustain that rejection of
claim 10. The examiner also has chosen to reject claim 10 along with claim 14. Although
we have sustained the rejection of claim 14, we will not sustain the second rejection of
claim 10, in view of the fact that further consideration of Wallace fails to overcome the
problems we found with the rejection of parent claim 1.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-11 as being unpatentable over Kaduki in view of
Phillips, Morita and Lister is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable over Kaduki in view of Phillips,
Morita, Lister and Wallace is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 14 as being unpatentable over Kaduki in view of Phillips,
Morita, Lister and Wallace is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007