Appeal No. 2001-0210 Page 7
Application No. 08/560,675
sustain the rejection of independent claim 27 or dependent claims 28-30, on the basis of
the same rationale advanced above with regard to claim 40.
Dependent claims 24 and 31 add to claims 40 and 27, respectively, the
requirement that there be a plurality of channels. They stand rejected on the basis of
Hoffman and Newhouse, taken further with Wolff, the latter being applied for teaching the
use of a plurality of channels as “an alternative conventional structure used for the same
intended purpose” to the single channel disclosed by Hoffman (Answer, page 5). Neither
Newhouse nor Wolfe overcome the shortcoming in Hoffman discussed above, and
therefore this rejection also is not sustained.
SUMMARY
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007