Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 6
Application No. 08/138,555
We are also persuaded that he erred in rejecting claims 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 55-
57, 59, and 60 as obvious over Roland in view of Tolson; in rejecting claim 47 as
obvious over Roland or Mauch '393 in view of Tolson further in view of Walton '068; in
rejecting claims 49, 53, and 54 as obvious over Roland in view of Tolson further in view
of Bar-on even further in view of Shelley; in rejecting claims 52 and 63-66 as obvious
over Roland, Mauch '393, or Mauch '954 in view of Tolson further in view of Bar-on; in
rejecting claim 58 as obvious over Roland or Mauch '393 or Ulch in view of Tolson
further in view of Clark '780; in rejecting claim 62 as obvious over Roland in view of
Tolson further in view of Walton '829; and in rejecting claim 67 as obvious over Roland
in view of Tolson further in view of Masel.
Similarly, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 68 as
obvious over Mauch '393 in view of Tolson; claim 69 as obvious over Mauch '393 or
Ulch in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296; in rejecting claim 70 as obvious over
Roland, Mauch '393, or Ulch in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '780; in rejecting
claim 71 as obvious over Roland, Mauch '393, or Mauch '954 in view of Tolson further
in view of Bar-on; and in rejecting claim 72 as obvious over Roland in view of Tolson
further in view of Masel.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007