Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
combining the teachings of Finkelstein and Rager. Appellants
argue that the rationale proposed by the examiner presumes
problems in Finkelstein that do not exist and is contrary to the
teachings of the references themselves. Appellants also argue
that the specific recitations of claim 25 are not met by the
applied prior art in any case [brief, pages 23-26].
We again agree with appellants for the reasons set forth
in the briefs and for the reasons related to our discussion of
Rager above. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 25.
Claims 26-29 depend from claim 25 and are rejected on the
combination of Finkelstein and Rager plus additional prior art.
Since Finkelstein and Rager do not teach the invention of claim
25 as discussed above, and since the additional prior art does
not overcome the deficiencies in this combination, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of claims 26-29.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007