Appeal No. 2002-2024
Application No. 09/197,404
failings of the proposed combinations of Wallace '679, Daugherety
'819 and Narkon apply equally well to the combination of
Daugherty '082 and Narkon. We also share appellant's views with
regard to this rejection as set forth on pages 13-14 of the
brief. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 6
through 13, 17, 18 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Daugherty '082 in view of Narkon will
likewise not be sustained.
The only other rejection for our review is that of dependent
claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Daugherty '082, Narkon and McCloskey. We have reviewed the
teachings of McCloskey, and find that even if combined as urged
by the examiner, there is nothing in the teachings of McCloskey
which makes up for or otherwise provides response for the
deficiencies in the basic combination of Wallace and Daugherty
'082 and Narkon, as noted above. Thus, this rejection will also
not be sustained.
Since we are unable to sustain any of the rejections posited
by the examiner, it follows that the examiner's decision to
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007