Appeal No. 2001-1185
Application No. 08/915,597 Page 11
We turn next to the rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers
Sowles considered with Hatano and Azer. We reverse the rejection
of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Azer does not
make up for the basic deficiencies of Sowles and Hatano.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1, 3-6, 8, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007