Appeal No. 2001-1791
Application No. 08/992,038
not remedy the deficiency of the rejection applied against claim 8 (and we have
determined the insufficiency of Rege’s general statement at column 2 with respect to
avoiding “substantial rearrangement of components”), we sustain the rejection of
neither claim. We thus do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over INTERNET, Sitbon, and Li, and do not sustain the rejection of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over INTERNET, Sitbon, Li, and
Rege.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, but have not sustained the rejections of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12
under the same statute. The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1-12 and 14-18 is
thus affirmed-in-part.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007