Appeal No. 2002-1641
Application No. 09/276,213
determination that the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2
and 4 through 9 on the basis of the combined teachings of
Schaefer and Ghoneim also will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaefer and
Ghoneim taken further in view of Sone. We have reviewed the
added reference to Sone, but find nothing therein which overcomes
or provides for the deficiencies we have identified above with
regard to the basic combination of Schaefer and Ghoneim.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007