Appeal No. 1999-1584
Application No. 08/579,242
claims 10 and 15 over Watson and Perry. Consequently, we do
not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims 2 to 7, 11,
13, 14 and 17 to 20 over Watson and Perry.
Watson, Perry and Kishi
Claims 8, 12 and 16 are rejected as being unpatentable1
over Watson in view of Perry and Kishi at page 5 of the
examiner’s answer. Kishi is used to verify that the label is
correct. Kishi, however, does not cure the deficiency noted
above in the combination of Watson and Perry. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 12, and 16 over
Watson, Perry and Kishi.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 8 and
The Examiner’s statement of rejection for these claims does not1
include Perry as one of the references relied upon, however, since these
claims depend from independent claims 1, 10 and 15 in whose rejection Perry
was used, the rejection of these claims must also include reliance on Perry.
Therefore, we consider Perry as one of the references in this combination.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007