Appeal No. 1999-1542
Application No. 08/806,864
the road map of the Appellants’ disclosure. This we find
inconsistent with the established law. Therefore, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 21 and its group
claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 35, 36, 44, 45, and 47 over
Yoneoka in view of Le Van and Chhabra. For the same rationale,
we find that the obviousness rejection of claim 16, which
depends on claim 12, also falls with the rejection of the other
claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007