Appeal No. 2000-1161
Application No. 09/318,354
particular place in these two references, nor provided any
line of reasoning to make the suggested modification. Since
all the other independent claims 12, 21, 22, 32, and 36 each
have a limitation similar to the one discussed above we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 21, 22, 32,
and 36, and their dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, 23-31, 33-35,
37, and 38 over Krebs in view of Lieber.
In summary, we have pro forma sustained the rejection of
claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, while we
have reversed the rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We have also not sustained
the obviousness rejection of claims 1-13, 15, 16, 21-38
(except that claim 38 is subject to the above noted
clarification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007