Appeal No. 2000-0170
Application No. 08/811,124
Yoda and Honeycutt
With respect to the rejection of claims 43-45, and 57-60
over this combination (answer at pages 7 and 8), we reiterate our
view regarding claim 43 and reverse its rejection pro forma.
Regarding claims 44, 45 and 57 through 60, for the rationale
given above under the anticipation rejection over Yoda, we are of
the view that Honeycutt does not overcome the deficiency noted
above in Yoda to meet the limitations of independent claim 41
upon which these claims depend. Therefore, the rejections of
claims 44, 45 and 57 through 60 over Yoda and Honeycutt are not
sustained.
Lee, Wilson and Honeycutt
In response to the obviousness rejection of claims 46
through 48, and 57 through 60 (answer at pages 8 and 9),
appellants argue (brief at pages 14 and 15) that first, there is
no motivation to combine Lee, Wilson and Honeycutt and secondly,
even if the combination were proper, the combination still would
not meet the claim limitations.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007